- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application, praying for quashing the decision of the State Sentence Review Board, pursuant to the meetings held on 20.05.2011, 25.05.2011 and 27.05.2011, as contained in Annexure 8, whereby, 134 convicts who had already undergone sentence for more than 20 years, were directed to be released prematurely by the State Sentence Review Board, whereas, several others were denied the benefit, including the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure 5 series, which contains the letter dated 24.03.2010 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, in the State of Bihar, as the petitioner belongs to the said place, forwarding the report of the Officer In-Charge, Jalalpur P.S., informing that the enquiry was made in the village of the petitioner and it was found that there was no apprehension of the petitioner again indulging in any offence after his release from the jail and the report also shows that the economical and social condition of the petitioner was found to the proper. Annexure 5 series also contains a report submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, by the Officer In-Charge, Telco Police Station on 19.01.2011 wherefrom, it appears that there is nothing adverse against the petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, on the allegation of murder of one Sri S. N. Sahay, Deputy Manager, Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Ltd, Jamshedpur. The petitioner having been convicted in the said case, was sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for seven years under the Arms Act. The period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner finds mentioned in Memo No. 1992 dated 25.08.2011 issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jamshedpur, as contained in Annexure 1, which shows that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of more than twenty years including the period of remission. Thus, it appears that there is no reason for denying the benefit of premature release to the petitioner, the benefit whereof was given by the State Sentence Review Board to other 134 convicts by the same order as contained in Annexure ? 8.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision of the State Sentence Review Board is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, even though the other 134 convicts were given the benefit of premature release, the petitioner was denied the same benefit without there being any material against the petitioner. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, submitted that the impugned decision as contained in Annexure ? 8, so far it denies the benefit to the petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed against the petitioner, which has been brought on records as Annexure- 10, clearly shows that the allegation against the petitioner was not such, so as to conclude that the premature release of the petitioner shall be a threat for the society at large. This apart, the reports referred to above clearly show that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner rather, the reports show there is no chance of the petitioner again indulging in any offence after his premature release from the jail. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of premature release, as the same benefit has been given to the other similarly situated 134 convicts by the State Government. The action of the respondent State is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.;