Patna High Court – Orders
Dhirendra Singh @ Dhiraj Singh @ … vs The State Of Bihar Through The Chief … on 14 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.101 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2004 Thana- GRIYAK District- Nalanda
======================================================
Dhirendra Singh @ Dhiraj Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar Singh S/O Late Ram
Nandan Singh @ Adwani R/O Vill.- Ghosrawan P.S.- Giriyak, Dist.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar
2. The State Sentence Remission Board through the Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna
3. The Joint Secretary- Cum- Director (Administration), Home Department
(Prison), Patna Bihar
4. The Secretary, Law Department, Government of Patna Bihar
5. The Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation
Department, Bihar Patna
6. The Inspector General, Jail and Reforms Services, Bihar Patna
7. The Assistant Inspector General, Jail and Reforms Services, Bihar Patna
8. The Jail Superintendent, Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailesh Anand
For the Respondent/s : Mr.A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 14-07-2025
Heard the parties.
2. By way of this writ application the petitioner has
prayed for the following relief:-
(i) For issuance of writ of certiorari
directing to quash the order dated 01.11.2021
passed by Bihar State remission Board and
communicated by letter bearing number कारा/05-
07-11/2021-4679 dated 21-04-2022 by which
application for premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
2/13
(ii) For issuance of writ of mandamus
directing the respondents authorities for premature
release of the petitioner who has been convicted
vide order dated 21 08-2006 passed in Session
Trial No. 522 of 2004/trial number 55 of 2004.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his
application for early release as he has completed 14 years in
actual imprisonment.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that his case is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in the
case of Ajit Kumar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.
(Cr.W.J.C. 1195 of 2021) and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. 453 of 2021).
5. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Prabhu Narayan
Sharma, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit
Kumar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. and Pradeep
Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. could not
defend the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner.
6. I have heard and considered the submission of the
parties.
7. This Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors has held as under:-
23. Before dealing with the amendments
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
3/13brought into the relevant rule governing the case of
premature release, this Court would briefly take note of the
settled law that grant of remission, commutation, pardon,
reprieves or suspension of sentence is purely an executive
function (see Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of
Maharashtra [1961] 3 SCR 440; Maru Ram v. Union of
India [1981] 1 SCR 1196). It has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the executive power is traceable to
Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India which is
exercised by the President of India and Governor of the
State respectively to grant pardons and to suspend or remit
or commute sentence in certain cases. Section 433 Cr.P.C.
confers a statutory power upon the appropriate
Government to commute (a) a sentence of death, for any
other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code; (b) a
sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a
term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine; (c) a sentence
of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any
term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for
fine; (d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine.
24. Section 433-A imposes a restriction on
powers of remission or commutation in certain cases. This
provision has been inserted by Act 45 of 1978 w.e.f.
18.12.1978. Since, in this judgment, this Court is going to
deal with the categories of the convict prisoners who have
been brought under the purview of Section 433-A CrPC, it
is worth quoting the provision hereunder for a read
reference:-
“1[433-A. Restriction on powers of
remission or commutation in certain cases.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in
section 432, where a sentence of
imprisonment for life is imposed on
conviction of a person for an offence for
which death is one of the punishment
provided by laws or where a sentence of
death imposed on a person has been
commuted under section 433 into one of
imprisonment for life, such person shall not
be released from prison unless he had served
at least fourteen years of imprisonment.]
25. In the case of Jagdish (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has very eloquently explained the
framework of all executive power and how to exercise
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
4/13the same. Paragraph ’28’ of the judgment is being quoted
hereunder for a ready reference:
“28. Nevertheless, we may point out that the
power of the sovereign to grant remission is
within its exclusive domain and it is for this
reason that our Constitution makers went on
to incorporate the provisions of Article 72
and Article 161 of the Constitution of
India. This responsibility was cast upon the
executive through a constitutional mandate
to ensure that some public purpose may
require fulfilment by grant of remission in
appropriate cases. This power was
never intended to be used or utilised by the
executive as an unbridled power of reprieve.
Power of clemency is to be exercised
cautiously and in appropriate cases, which
in effect, mitigates the sentence of
punishment awarded and which does not, in
any way, wipe out the conviction. It is a
power which the sovereign exercises against
its own judicial mandate. The act of
remission of the State does not undo what
has been done judicially. The punishment
awarded through a judgment is not
overruled but the convict gets benefit of a
liberalised policy of State pardon. However,
the exercise of such power under Article 161
of the Constitution or under Section 433-A
CrPC may have a different flavour in the
statutory provisions, as short-sentencing
policy brings about a mere reduction in the
period of imprisonment whereas an act of
clemency under Article 161 of the
Constitution commutes the sentence itself.”
26. In the aforementioned background, when the
Rule 529 of the first Jail Manual came to be substituted
w.e.f. 28.12.2002 which is the date of publication of the
notification, the amended provision provided for certain
exceptional categories of convict prisoners who would be
debarred from getting a premature release. The relevant
part of the notification/Remission Notification dated
10.12.2002 are quoted hereunder:-
“¼vi½ Lke;& iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, v;ksX;rk
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
5/13fuEufyf[kr Js.kh ds fl)nks’k canh] tks vkthou
dkjkokl dk naM Hkqxr jgs gks] le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy,
fopkj& ;ksX; ughs gks ldsaxs &A
¼d½ cykRdkj] MdSrh] vkradoknh vijk/kksa] vkfn
tSls vijk/kksa ds fl)nks’k canhA
¼[k½ oSls canh] tks iwoZ fparu fd;s x;s fo’k;ksa ,oa
lqfu;ksftr <ax ls gR;k,a vk;ksftr djus ds fy,
fl)nks’k gksA
¼x½ oSls is”ksoj gR;kjs] ftUgs HkkMs+ ij gR;k djkus
dk nks’kh ik;k x;k gksA
¼?k½ oSls fl)nks’k canh tks rLdjh dk;Z esa varfyZIr
jgsrs gq, gR;k djrk gks vFkok drZO; ij jgus okys
yksd lsodksa dh gR;k dk nks’kh gksA”
27. Earlier, there had been a controversy as to
the date on which the amended Remission Notification
amending Rule 529 of the Jail Manual actually came to be
implemented. On the basis of the pleadings on the record,
this Court considered this issue in the case of Surendra
Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2021 (4)
PLJR 393 and after going through the earlier Hon’ble
Division Judgment of this Court, it has been held that the
notification dated 10.12.2002 was not implemented prior to
25.09.2007, in fact the affidavit of the then Principal
Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar filed
in Cr.WJC No. 2530 of 2017 (Naresh Sahani versus the
State of Bihar and Others) which has been placed before
this Court and forms part of the records of the said case
admits this position and refers the period between
28.12.2002 and 24.09.2007 as the period during which life
convicts were released by the Jail Superintendents
themselves after calculating 14 years of actual custody and
20 years with remission. It is specific stand in the said
affidavit that from 25.09.2007 and onwards the life convicts
were released by the State after recommendation of the
Board.
28. This issue with regard to the implementation
of the Remission Notification dated 10.12.2002 once again
came to be considered in case of Md. Alauddin Ansari
(supra) and in the case of Sikander Mahto (supra), this
Court after detail discussion has concluded that once the
State has given the benefit of 1984 Policy to the convicts of
the period after publication of Remission Notification and
prior to 25.09.2007, the same benefit may be granted to the
similarly situated persons. Even as the State complied with
the judgments of this Court, at a much belated stage, the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
6/13
State was advised to file special leave petitions in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court to challenge the judgments of this
Court in the case of Md. Alauddin Ansari (supra) and
Sikander Mahto (supra) but those special leave petitions
have been dismissed on the ground of delay leaving the
question of law open.
29. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
(supra), an identical case of the convict under Section 364A
and 379/34 IPC came to be considered, this Court took note
of the several instances where the Board had considered the
proposals for premature release of the convicts under
Section 364-A IPC. The submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner as noted above with regard to the
statements made in paragraph ’14’ of the said writ
application citing the names of Motilal Yadav, Prem
Prakash Yadav and Vijay Yadav who were granted release
by the Remission Board are correct. In this regard, the
relevant paragraphs ’10’, ’11’ and ’12’ are quoted
hereunder for a ready reference:-
“10. It is evident from a reading of Annexure
‘A’ that the category of cases as enumerated
under sub-clause (kha) are those cases in
which the policy with regard to the
premature release does not permit any
consideration. An offence committed under
Section 364A of the IPC is not specifically
provided under paragraph (iv)(ka). The
word ‘vkfn’ at the end of sub-clause (ka) has
to be read ‘Ejusdem generis’ i.e. the birds of
the same feather flock together and by
applying that rule of principle of
interpretation the word ‘vkfn’ may only be
taken to mean and understand the offences
of the similar category such as rape, dacoity
and terrorist acts. Perhaps it is for this
reason that the cases of Vijay Yadav and
others as mentioned in paragraph ’14’ of the
writ application would have been
considered. It appears to this Court that the
Remission Board while considering the case
of the petitioner has not acted with
objectivity and has simply rejected his
prayer for premature release by referring to
the Notification dated 10th December, 2002
and paragraph (iv) (ka).”
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
7/13
“11. It is pertinent to mention here that the
sub-clause (kha) has to be read together with
sub-clause (ka) and only then the Remission
Board may arrive on a proper conclusion as
to in which cases the benefit of premature
release may be granted in terms of the
policy. In fact having sensed this position
that the State has not denied the specific
statements made in paragraph ’14’ of the
writ application, at one stage learned AC to
AAG-3 also submitted that the case may be
remanded to the State Remission Board for
fresh consideration.”
“12. In the light of the discussions
hereinabove the decision dated 03.04.2020
taken by State Remission Board as contained
Annexure ‘6’ to the writ application with
respect to this petitioner is hereby quashed.
The State Remission Board shall now
consider the case of the petitioner afresh
within a period of two months from the date
of receipt/communication of this order
keeping in view the discussions made in the
judgment hereinabove. Such decision shall
be reasoned one considering all aspects of
the matter and will be communicated to the
petitioner forthwith after the decision is
rendered within the time frame.”
This judgment has also attained finality.
30. Apart from the aforementioned precedents
available for consideration in the present case, there is one
more issue which is required to be taken note of, discussed
and then the conclusion is required to be drawn with regard
to the application of the substituted Manual of 2012 which
have come into force. The significance of the post
10.12.2002 notification and effect of coming into force of
Manual of 2012 by which the first Jail Manual was
superseded would be significant. In exercise of powers
conferred by Section 59 of the Act of 1894 (as amended),
the Government of Bihar has framed the Manual of 2012 in
supersession of the first Jail Manual. Chapter 15 in the
Manual of 2012 is in two parts. While Part ‘A’ deals with
general provisions for release, Part ‘B’ contains Rule 474
to 487 which are relevant for the purpose of premature
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
8/13
release. This Part provides for constitution of Remission
Board, the meetings of the Board, procedure for dealing
with the proposals for premature release, category of
prisoners who shall be eligible for release by the Board and
the categories of prisoners covered under Section 433-A
CrPC in the exception list.
31. Categories of convicts covered under
Section 433-A CrPC have been substituted vide Amendment
Notification No. 3194 dated 26.05.2016. For the purpose of
this case, in order to appreciate the changes brought about
by the Notification dated 26.05.2016 in the exception list,
this Court deems it just and proper to reproduce Rule 481
of the Manual of 2012 hereunder:-
“481. The following categories of prisoners
shall be eligible to be considered for a
review of sentences and premature release by
the Board:
i. Every convicted prisoner whether male or
female undergoing sentence of life
imprisonment and covered by the provisions
of Section 433A CrPC shall be eligible to be
considered for premature release from the
prison immediately after serving out the
sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment
i.e. without the remissions. 2[The following
categories of convicted prisoner covered
under Section 433A Cr.P.C. undergoing life
sentence would not be entitled to be
considered for premature release even after
undergoing imprisonment for 20 years
including remission:]
1
[(a) Such convicts who have been
imprisoned for life for rape, rape with
murder, dacoity with murder, murder
involving offence under the Protection of
Civil Rights Act, 1955, murder for dowry,
murder of a child below 14 years of age,
multiple murder, murder committed after
conviction while inside the prison, murder
during parole, murder in terrorist incident,
murder in smuggling operation, 2[xxx]]
(b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers,
drug traffickers, racketeers awarded life
imprisonment for committing murders as
also the perpetrators of murder committed
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
9/13with pre-meditation and with exceptional
violence or perversity.
c) Convicts whose death sentence has been
commuted to life imprisonment.
ii. All other convicted male prisoners not
covered by section 433A Cr.PC undergoing
the sentence of life imprisonment shall be
considered for premature release after they
have served at least 14 years of
imprisonment inclusive of remission but only
after completion of 10 years actual
imprisonment i.e. without remissions.
iii. The female prisoners not covered by
section 433A Cr.PC undergoing the sentence
of life imprisonment shall be considered for
premature release after they have served at
least 10 years of imprisonment inclusive of
remissions but only after completion of 7
years actual imprisonment i.e. without
remissions.
3
[(iv) In such cases in which life sentence
has been awarded by specifying that the
convict shall undergo life sentence till the
end of his life without remission or
commutation, benefit of remission or
commutation shall not be given to convict.]
3
[(v) In such cases in which life sentence has
been awarded by specifying that the convict
shall not be released by granting remission
or commutation till he completes a fixed
term of 20 years or 25 years or like,
remission or commutation shall not be
granted to a convict until he completes the
fixed term as prescribed in the sentence.]”
32. To understand the mandate of Manual of
2012 to the Remission Board in the matter of consideration
of the cases of premature release, Rule 478 is relevant and
it guides the Board with regard to the considerations
required to be given to the proposals coming before the
Board for grant of premature release. Rules 478 of Manual
of 2012 reads as under:-
“478. While considering the case of
premature release of a particular
prisoner the Board shall keep in view
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
10/13the general principles of remission of
sentences, as laid down by the State
Government or by the courts, as also
the earlier precedents in the matter.
The paramount consideration before
the Board being the welfare of the
society at large. The Board shall not
ordinarily decline a premature
release of a prisoner merely on the
ground that the police have not
recommended his/her release. The
Board shall take into account the
circumstances in which the offence
was committed by the prisoner;
whether he/she has the propensity to
commit similar or other offences
again; socio-economic condition of
the convict’s family and possibility of
further violence or offence on his/her
release, progress in victim
reconciliation programmes and
chances of reclaiming the convict as
a useful member of the society.”
8. Subsequently in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra
(Supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court after quoting the
minutes of the meeting dated 23.12.2020 had thereafter
concluded as under:
34. At this stage, it is worth mentioning that recently
once again Rule 481(i) (a) of the Manual of 2012
has been amended vide Notification No. 2894 dated
10.04.2023 published on 11.04.2023. By this
amendment, the words “or murder of a public
servant on duty” present in sub-clause (a) of clause
(i) of Rule 481 has been omitted. Immediately, after
omitting the said part, the benefit of liberal
provision has been given to 27 life convicts and they
have been released. This clearly establishes the fact
that the Remission Board has given the benefit of the
amended provision of Rule 481 to the life convicts
who were otherwise covered under the exceptional
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
11/13category of the Remission Notification and the
Remission Policy of the Government on the date of
conviction and sentence. So far as this aspect is
concerned, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jagdish (supra) has held that
the policy prevailing on the date of conviction would
be applicable but at the same time, it was also
recognised that if a more liberal policy exists on the
date of consideration, the benefit should be
provided. Recently in the case of Rajo @ Rajwa @
Rajendra Mandal Vs. The State of Bihar and
others reported as 2023 INSC 771 (Writ Petition
(Criminal) No(s). 252/2023), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held in paragraph ’23’ of its judgment as
under:-
“23. This court, on earlier occasion, had
grappled with the situation of different
remission policies/rules prevailing at
different points of the convict’s sentence –
i.e., when the policy on the date of
conviction, and on the date of consideration
for premature release, are different. It has
been held that the policy prevailing on the
date of the conviction20, would be applicable.
However, in Jagdish (supra) it was also
recognised that if a more liberal policy exists
on the date of consideration, the benefit
should be provided:
“43. […] The State authority is
under an obligation to at least
exercise its discretion in relation to
an honest expectation perceived by
the convict, at the time of his
conviction that his case for
premature release would be
considered after serving the sentence,
prescribed in the short-sentencing
policy existing on that date. The State
has to exercise its power of remission
also keeping in view any such benefit
to be construed liberally in favour of
a convict which may depend upon
case to case and for that purpose, in
our opinion, it should relate to a
policy which, in the instant case, was
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
12/13in favour of the respondent. In case a
liberal policy prevails on the date of
consideration of the case of a “lifer”
for premature release, he should be
given benefit thereof.”
35. This Court finds that on the date of
consideration of the case of the petitioner on
23.12.2020, Rule 481 (i) (a) of the Manual of 2012
had already removed the difficulty, if any, in
interpretation of the word ‘etc.’ or ‘vkfn’ which was
occurring under clause (iv) (d) of the Remission
Notification dated 10.12.2002. There was no scope
for the Board to read a conviction under 364-A IPC
in the exception list either in clause (iv) ( d) of the
Remission Notification dated 10.12.2002 or under
the substituted Manual of 2012. There were
precedents also available before the Board showing
that in other cases of convicts under Section 364-A
IPC, the Board had granted premature release. It is
not the case of the Board that the conviction of this
petitioner was for the offence under Section 364A
IPC with pre-meditation of mind. The case of the
petitioner has been rejected under clause (iv) ( d) of
the Remission Notification dated 10.12.2002 without
appreciating that the ambiguity and vagueness in
the word ‘etc.’ present in the said clause had
already been removed in the Manual of 2012.
9. In view of the aforesaid judgment, this
application is allowed.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 01.11.2021
passed by Bihar State Remission Board and communicated by
letter bearing number कारा/05-07-11/2021-4679 dated 21-04-
2022 is hereby quashed.
11. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the
authorities for remission in light of the aforesaid judgment and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.101 of 2025(4) dt.14-07-2025
13/13
if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by
the remission board in accordance with law and in light of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. (Supra). The application of the
petitioner shall be disposed of within three months of its filing.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U