4. Learned counsel submits that from the further endorsements made in Columns ‘14’, ‘15’ and ‘16’ of Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit in respect of this petitioner, it would appear that while his request was rejected by the Board in its meeting held on 21.08.2019 by citing clause ‘(iv)([k)’ of the Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002, in the subsequent meeting dated 23.12.2020, the Board decided to grant the benefit of premature release to the petitioner despite adverse opinion of the learned Presiding Officer of the Board in the light of the judgment of this Court in Cr.WJC No. 272 of 2017 (Ravi Pratap Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar and Others) but his release was allowed subject to a condition that the petitioner would keep on marking his attendance regularly in the local police station every month for a period of two years. It is submitted that there is no information in the counter affidavit as to why despite the decision of the Board taken to the aforesaid effect in its meeting on 23.12.2020, the petitioner was not released. It, however, appears from Column ‘16’ that in its meeting held on 19.05.2021, the Board decided to obtain a report afresh from the Superintendent of Police, the Probation
