Allowed¶71

Lallan Mandal v. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Home Department

Patna HC12 Aug 2024CR. WJC/692/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CR. WJC No.692 of 2023; decided 12-08-2024; Rajeev Ranjan Prasad J; premature release; State Sentence Remission Board; adverse police report; surmises and conjectures; S.S.P. Bhagalpur Letter No. 692 dated 29.01.2022; S.D.P.O. Kahalgaon; life convict; Section 302/34 IPC; Section 27 Arms Act; 17 years actual incarceration; Laxman Naskar (2000) 2 SCC 595; Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal 2023 Online SC 1068; Bihar Prison Manual 2012; reasoned order within two months; writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed to the extent indicated: impugned decision of the State Sentence Remission Board (Annexure '8') set aside; Board directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh without prejudice by its earlier decision and to pass a reasoned order, preferably within two months. ¶71

Lallan Mandal Vs The State of Bihar through the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the decision of the State Sentence Remission Board rejecting the petitioner's request for premature release solely on the ground of an adverse police report was sustainable. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

On the factual background and the legal proposition emerging from the judicial pronouncements relied upon, this Court sets aside the impugned decision of the Board as contained in Annexure '8' to the writ application.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

The police report of the S.S.P., Bhagalpur relied upon by the Board (Letter/Memo No. 692 dated 29.01.2022) is crystal-clearly based on mere surmises and conjectures; it is of ornamental nature, completely vague and baseless, asserting merely that chances of law and order problem on the petitioner's release cannot be ruled out.

¶58

Key takeaways

The Board is directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh without being prejudiced by its earlier decision, and to pass a reasoned order at the earliest and preferably within a period of two months from receipt/communication of a copy of the order, considering the petitioner's prolonged stay in jail.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Premature release — State Sentence Remission Board (Bihar) rejected the request of a life convict (convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act; about 17 years actual incarceration, over 21½ years with remission) resting solely on an adverse police report of the S.S.P., Bhagalpur (Memo/Letter No. 692 dated 29.01.2022, per S.D.P.O., Kahalgaon). The Court, relying on Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 595 and Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of Bihar and Others, 2023 Online SC 1068, found the report 'crystal clear[ly]' 'based on mere surmises and conjectures', vague, baseless and ornamental in nature, and set aside the Board's decision contained in Annexure '8'. The Board was directed to consider the case afresh without being prejudiced by its earlier decision and to pass a reasoned order at the earliest, preferably within two months, considering the petitioner's prolonged stay in jail. Application allowed (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.692 of 2023

¶3

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2006 Thana- SANHAULA District- Bhagalpur

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Lallan Mandal, Son of Ramswarup Mandal, R/V- Sakhuwa, P.S- Sanhaula, Dist- Bhagalpur

¶6

... ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Home Department

¶9

The Director General of Police, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶10

The Prison Assistant Inspector General (Prison and Correctional Services) Head Quarter, Patna

¶11

The Deputy Inspector General, Bhagalpur

¶12

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur

¶13

The Jail Superintendent of Police, Jubba Sahani, Central Jail, Bhagalpur

¶14

The Jail Superintendent of Police, Open Jail Buxar

¶15

The Probation Officer, Home Department, (Prison and Correctional Services), Bhagalpur

¶16

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur

¶17

The Officer-in-charge, Police Station- Sanhaula, Bhagalpur

¶18

... ... Respondents

¶19

======================================================

¶20

Appearance :

¶21

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to AG

¶22

======================================================

¶23

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Date : 12-08-2024

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. N. Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State.

¶27

2. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision of the State Sentence Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) taken in its

¶28

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.692 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 2/8

¶29

meeting held on 09.09.2022 (Annexure ‘8’ to the writ application) whereby and whereunder the request of the petitioner for his premature release in terms of Government’s policy has been rejected. The solitary ground in the minute of the meeting of the Board is that there is an adverse police report.

¶30

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has been ordered to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for three years. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount.

¶31

4. It is submitted that the petitioner has already spent about 17 years in actual incarceration and more than 21½ years of sentence with remission.

¶32

5. The prayer for premature release of the petitioner has been rejected on a completely unfounded and unsubstantiated ground that if the petitioner would come out from jail, the chances of law and order problem cannot be ruled out.

¶33

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.692 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 3/8

¶34

6. Learned counsel submits that on a bare perusal of the police report as contained in Memo No. 692 dated 29.01.2022 (Annexure ‘C’ to the counter affidavit), it would appear that it is based on surmises and conjunctures and, in fact, has no actual basis to stand.

¶35

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In paragraph ‘9’ of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the S.S.P, Bhagalpur has vide its Letter No. 692 dated 29.01.2022 opined as per the report of the S.D.P.O., Kahalgaon. It is stated that the local villagers and public representatives have stated that there is probability of deterioration of law and order if the petitioner comes out from the jail. It is for this reason, the S.S.P, Bhagalpur has not recommended release of the petitioner.

¶36

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AG for the State, this Court, at the outset, deems it just and proper to extract the police report as contained in Memo No. 692 dated 29.01.2022 hereunder for a ready reference :

¶37

“ Kkikad & 692@ xksiuh; ojh; iqfyl v/kh{kd dk dk;kZy;] Hkkxyiqj lsok esa] v/kh{kd] 29@01@2022 eqDr dkjkxkj] cDljA

¶38

izlax & vkids dk;kZy; dk i=kad 1305 fnukad 03-10-2021] i=kad 1580 fnukad

¶39

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.692 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 4/8

¶40

15-11-2021 rFkk i=kad 53 fnukad 07-01-2022

¶41

fo’k; & eqDr dkjk cDlj ds vkthou dkjkokl ltk izkIr canh yyu eaMy] firk & jkeLo:i eaMy ds vla;e dkjk eqfDr gsrq okafNr izfrosnu izsf’kr djus ds laca/k esA

¶42

mi;qZDr izklafxd i= ds ek/;e ls fo’k;kafdr eqDr dkjk cDlj ds ltkokj canh yyu eaMy] firk jkeLo:i eaMy] lkfdu& l[kqvk] Fkkuk& lUgkSyk] ftyk Hkkxyiqj l=okn la[;k& 708@2007] /kkjk & 302] 120ch Hkk0n0fo0 ,oa 27 vkElZ ,DV ds vUrxZr fnukad 24-02-2009 dks vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk gqbZ Fkh] mDr canh dk dkjk eqfDr gsrq izLrko jkT; n.Mkns”k ifjgkj Ik’kZn dks Hkstus gsrq izklafxd i= ds ek/;e ls Li’V earO; lfgr izfrosnu dh ekax dh xbZ gSA mDr canh ds vle; dkjk eqfDr ds laca/k esa vuqe.My iqfyl inkf/kdkjh] dgyxk¡o ls izfrosnu dh ekax fd;k x;kA vuqe.My iqfyl inkf/kdkjh dgyxk¡o }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd LFkkuh; xzkeh.kks ,oa tu izfrfuf/k;ksa ds le{k ,oa [kqys ,oa xqIr :i ls iqNrkN ds Øe esa yksxks }kjk [kqydj rks ugha ysfdu nch tqcku ls crk;k x;k fd yyu eaMy] firk&jkeLo:i eaMy] lk0& l[kqvk] Fkkuk& lUgkSyk] ftyk Hkkxyiqj ds vle; dkjk ls eqDr gksus ij fof/k& O;oLFkk dh leL;k mRiUu gksus ls badj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶43

vr% vuqe.My iqfyl inkf/kdkh] dgyxk¡o ds }kjk lefiZr tk¡p izfrosnu ls lger gksrs gq, mDr canh dks vle; dkjk ls eqDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶44

9. At the same time, this Court has noticed that on record,

¶45

there is a report of the Probation Officer (Annexure ‘4’ to the

¶46

writ application) which reads as under :-

¶47

“Annexure- 4

¶48

l=okn Lak[;k & 708@07 ds vkthou dkjkokl] canh yyu eaMy] is0& jkeLo:i eaMy] lka0& l[kqvk lak0& l[kqvk] Fkkuk&lUgksyk ftyk& Hkkxyiqj ds le; iwoZ fjgkbZ gsrq tk¡p izfrosnu &

¶49

izlax& v/kh{kd] eqDr dkjkxkj] cDlj dk i=kad&1306 fnukad & 03&10&2021A

¶50

l=okn la[;k& 708@07 esa vkthou dkjkokl] ltkokj canh yyu eaMy is0& jkeLo:i eaMy gSa canh ds mez yxHkx 48 o’kZ ch,0 ikl gS] lka0& l[kqvk] Fkkuk& lUgksyk] ftyk & Hkkxyiqj ds LFkkbZ fuoklh gSA canh dks fdlh izdkj dh u”kkiku dh vknr ugha gSA canh dks nks iq= gSa canh ds firk dh eqR;q gks pqdh gSA

¶51

canh ds ifjokj ds lnL;x.k fuEu izdkj gS&

¶52

¼1½ lfork nsoh&canh dh ek¡ & yxHkx 75 o’kZ & vui<+& ?kj ij jgrh gSA ¼2½ ehuk dqekjh& canh dh iRuh& yxHkx 43 o’kZ&,e0 ,0 ikl& f”kf{kdk gSA

¶53

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.692 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 5/8

¶54

¼3½ “kqHke dqekj& canh dk iq=& yxHkx 2 o’kZ &ch,0 ikl & izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk dh rS;kjh djrk gSA

¶55

¼4½ laxe jkt & canh dk iq= & yxHkx 19 o’kZ & ch,0 dh i<+kbZ dj jgk gSA

¶56

canh ds ifjokj dk 2 dÎk esa ,d eaftyk edku gSA ftlesa ik¡p dejsa gS] ,d NksVk vkaxu gSA canh ds fgLls esa df’k ;ksX; tehu nks ch?kk crkbZ xbZ gSA canh tsy ls NqVus ij ?kj ij jgsxsA vkSj MkDVj dk dk;Z djsxsA canh ds tsy ls fjgk gksus ij xzkeh.kksa esa [kq”kh gSA iquoklZ dh leL;k ugha gSA ljiap lfcrk nsoh ,oa xzkeh.k latho eaMy] vfuy nkl] jkt lj ,oa egsUnz jke vkfn iM+ksfl;ksa us canh ds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds iqokZpj.k dks vPNk crk;k mldk dksbZ vijkf/kd bfrgkl ugha crk;k x;kA xzkeh.kksa us crk;k fd dkjk foHkqfDr ds i”pkr~ mlds xg izokl ds nkSjku lkekftd “kkafr Hkax gksus dh dksbZ laHkkouk ugha gSA

¶57

vr% vkthou dkjkokl ltkokj canh yyu eaMy ds le; iwoZ fjgkbZ ds izLrko dks fcgkj jkT; n.Mkns”k ifjgkj Ik’kZn ds le{k fopkjkFkZ Hksts tkus dh vuqdwy vuq”kalk dh tkrh gSA

¶58

10. From the report of the S.S.P., Bhagalpur, it is crystal clear that the report is based on mere surmises and conjectures inasmuch as it has used the words of ornamental nature saying that the chances of law and order problem on release of the petitioner from jail cannot be ruled out. Apparently, there is no basis for providing such kind of completely vague and baseless report.

¶59

(emphasis supplied)

¶60

11. In the case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 595 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines which are required to be followed in the matter of submission of police report.

¶61

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.692 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 6/8

¶62

12. Recently, in the case of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2023 Online SC 1068 again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given all emphasis on the kind of considerations which are required to be given at the time of consideration of a request of the petitioner for premature release. The relevant paragraphs from the said judgment is quoted hereunder :-

¶63

“ 23. Another aspect of note in this case, is the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police in the second round (which is diametrically different from that which was submitted in the first round), was adverse. Without casting aspersions on the veracity of it, or questioning it on merits, it is appropriate to flag another concern in such a context. In each case, the appropriate government has to be cognizant of the latent (not always) prejudices of the crime, that the police as well as the investigating agency, may be citing - especially in a case such as the present one, where the slain victims were police personnel themselves, i.e., members of the police force. These biases may inform the report, and cannot be given determinative value. Doing so will potentially deflect the appropriate government from the facts relevant for consideration for premature release, and instead, focus almost entirely upon facts which evoke a retributive response.

¶64

24. Apart from the other considerations (on the nature of the crime, whether it affected the society at large, the chance of its recurrence, etc.), the appropriate government should while considering the potential of the convict to commit crimes in the future, whether

¶65

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.692 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024

¶66

7/8

¶67

there remains any fruitful purpose of continued incarceration, and the socio-economic conditions, review : the convict's age, state of heath, familial relationships and possibility of reintegration, extent of earned remission, and the post-conviction conduct including, but not limited to - whether the convict has attained any educational qualification whilst in custody, volunteer services offered, job/work done, jail conduct, whether they were engaged in any socially aimed or productive activity, and the overall development as a human being. The Board thus should not entirely rely either on the presiding judge, or the report prepared by the police. In this court's considered view, it would also serve the ends of justice if the appropriate government had the benefit of a report contemporaneously prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting/interviewing the convict that has applied for premature release. The Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 enables a convict to earn remissions, which are limited to one third of the total sentence imposed. Special remission for good conduct, in addition, is granted by the rules. If a stereotypical approach in denying the benefit of remission, which ultimately results in premature release, is repeatedly adopted, the entire idea of limiting incarceration for long periods (sometimes spanning a third or more of a convict's lifetime and in others, result in an indefinite sentence), would be defeated. This could result in a sense of despair and frustration among inmates, who might consider themselves reformed-but continue to be condemned in prison.”

¶68

13. In the aforementioned background of the facts as

¶69

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.692 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024 8/8

¶70

well as the legal proposition emerging from the judicial pronouncements on this subject, this Court sets aside the impugned decision of the Board as contained in Annexure ‘8’ to the writ application. The Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh without being prejudice by its earlier decision. The Board is directed to pass a reasoned order at the earliest and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order considering the prolonged stay of the petitioner in jail.

¶71

14. This application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶72

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶73

Prakash/-

¶74

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	13.08.2024
Transmission Date	13.08.2024

Lallan Mandal v. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallan Mandal v. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Chand Rai Vs The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bihar

Panna Lal Paswan @ Panna Lal Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sujit Kumar @ Lathi Singh Vs the State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

Vinod Kumar Singh @ Jalim Singh Vs The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

Binod Singh Vs The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.