IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.W.J.C. No.1296 of 2010 1. SURAJ HAZARA, S/O RAM SAWAROOP HAZARA 2. DINANATH MAHARA, S/O LATE KADAM MAHARA 3. JADUNANDAN MAHARA, S/O LATE HUSANI MAHARA ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DARPA, P.S. CHHAURA DANO, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE STATE SENTENCE REMISSION COMMITTEE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL, PRISON, BIHAR, PATNA 5. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI .. RESPONDENTS **** For the petitioners .. M/S Rajendra Kishore Prasad & Rohit Kishore Prasad, Advs For the State .. Mr. S.K. Sharma, G.A. III with Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, Asst. to G.A. III **** /5/ 10 February 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for State. This criminal writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in respect of petitioners on the ground that they have been in jail for sufficiently long period after conviction in a case under Section 302 read with other sections of the Indian Penal Code and their prayer of remission of their remaining sentence has been 2 wrongly disallowed by the authorities by treating them to be from a group of naxalites of an area. The present policy relating to remission has been annexed as Annexure “A” to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, which is same as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, and contains a notification, dated 10th December, 2002. Learned counsel for the State is correct in submitting that the present Government’s Policy/Instruction, which is enforce when the application for remission came up for consideration was applied and the authorities have rightly applied such policy decision and rejected the claim for remission in view of Clause IV, which disentitles a convict from benefit of remission in various circumstances including conviction for naxalite offences. Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Balwan [(1999) 7 S.C.C., 355] supports the stand of the learned counsel for the State that the policy in force at the time of considering the remission application shall be applicable. Clause IV of the policy decision mentions clearly that convicts who are undergoing 3 life imprisonment shall not be entitled for early release if they fall in any of the four categories, mentioned in Clause IV. The first category includes conviction for offence relating to (i) rape, (ii) dacoity, (iii) naxalite offences etc. Naxalite offences have not been defined separately and, hence, their general meaning has to be kept in mind. The discussion made in the judgment whereby the petitioners were convicted, particularly paragraph 6 thereof goes to show that on the basis of evidence the trial Court noticed that the family of the deceased and other agriculturists formed one group whereas the other group, which included the accused persons, was of the naxalites of that area. In that view of the matter, there appears merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the State that the murder for which the petitioners have been convicted has rightly been treated by the authorities to be in the category of a naxalite offence. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. S.A. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Gopal Prasad, J.)