This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1285 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2007 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan
======================================================
Vinod Kumar Singh @ Jalim Singh S/O Late Nagina Singh, R/O VillageChhitooni, P.S- Muriyari, Distt.- Balia (U.P).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 12-08-2024
Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 for the State.
2. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision of the State Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’/ ‘Remission Board’) passed on 20.04.2023 (Annexure ‘1’) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned decision’) whereby and whereunder the case of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1285 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 2/5
petitioner for premature release has been rejected citing clause (iv) (ka) and clause (iv) (kha) of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002. The petitioner has spent 17 years and 3 months in actual incarceration and more than 20 years with remission.
Submission on behalf of the Petitioner
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar Srivastava vs. the State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2022 (1) PLJR 217 , this Court has already taken a view that clause (iv) (ka) of the Notification would not cover the cases in which the conviction has taken place under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said judgment has attained finality, still the Remission Board is, instead of following the said judgment, relying upon the judgment of learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Cr.WJC No. 1330 of 2021).
3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that recently the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has in the case of Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma versus the State of Bihar and Others (Cr.WJC No. 722 of 2023) considered the reference made by this Court and upon a threadbare discussion of the two judgments and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1285 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 3/5
the relevant provisions of law, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that the views expressed by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar Srivastava (supra) is the correct view.
4. It is submitted that as regards the reports on which the Remission Board has relied upon, the Board has not indicated as to how the Probation Officer/ Superintendent of Police reports are adverse to the petitioner. Such reports have not been brought on the record. Referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar v. Union of India reported in (2000) 2 SCC 595 and Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar and others reported as 2023 INSC 771 (Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 252/2023), learned Senior Counsel submits that the reports of the Superintendent of Police as well as the Probation Officer would be required to be examined keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Stand of the State
5. Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 for the State has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements made in paragraphs ‘8’, ‘9’ and ‘10’ of the counter affidavit. It is his submission that the offence of kidnapping is as heinous as the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1285 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 4/5
offence of rape, dacoity and terrorist crimes and it is for this reason that the Board has rejected the prayer for premature release of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also referred the order dated 05.08.2022 passed in the case of Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Cr.WJC No. 1330 of 2021).
6. Having said so, learned SC-8 for the State does not dispute that the views expressed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo (supra) was subject matter of the reference before the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma (supra) and the Hon’ble Division Bench has not approved the views of the learned Coordinate Bench in the case of Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo (supra).
Consideration
7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned SC-8 for the State, this Court finds that the Board has not considered the case of the petitioner keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar Srivastava (supra) which has attained finality and the views expressed in the said case has been approved by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma (supra). Since the very consideration of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1285 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 5/5
the Board is based on a decision the views of which has not been approved by the Hon’ble Division Bench, in the opinion of this Court, the decision of the Board is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned decision of the Board and directs the Board to consider the case of the petitioner afresh keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra) and Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal (supra) and then the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma (supra).
9. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. This petitioner has already spent 17 years and 3 months in actual incarceration and more than 20 years with remission, therefore, the Board must consider the case afresh with all urgency.
10. This application stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
| SUSHMA2/- | |
|---|---|
| AFR/NAFR | |
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 13.08.2024 |
| Transmission Date | 13.08.2024 |
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava @ Pradip Kumar Srivastava vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.Relied on¶7
2022 (1) PLJR 217
Chitranjan Kumar @ Babloo Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Disapproved¶6
Cr.WJC No. 1330 of 2021
Munna Singh @ Ajay Sharma versus the State of Bihar and OthersRelied on¶7
Cr.WJC No. 722 of 2023
Laxman Naskar v. Union of IndiaApplied¶8
(2000) 2 SCC 595 · Who else cites this
Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar and othersApplied¶8
2023 INSC 771 (Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 252/2023) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Kumar Singh @ Jalim Singh
The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary
The Inspector General(Prison)
The District Magistrate, Siwan
The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari
The Superintendent of Police, Siwan
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
