Facts
The petitioner was convicted under Sections 302 and 201/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; his conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal, and his special leave petition was dismissed.
Source reference: p. 3By 2 March 2026, he had undergone 14 years, 5 months and 11 days of actual custody, and 19 years, 3 months and 25 days including remission.
Source reference: pp. 2, 3He sought consideration for premature release, but had received no intimation about the fate of his request. The State sought time to file a counter-affidavit.
Source reference: pp. 2–3Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s premature-release request should be placed before the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board in light of his period of actual custody and the applicable judicial pronouncements.
Source reference: pp. 2–32. Whether the competent authorities should be directed to obtain the necessary reports and secure the Board’s consideration of the petitioner’s case.
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The Court relied on the governing law and judicial pronouncements concerning premature release, including the decision in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1895 of 2023, dated 15 February 2025, which the petitioner cited for the proposition that convicts completing 14 years of actual custody are entitled to consideration for premature release.
Source reference: p. 2The Court treated the applicable mandate as requiring the authorities to place the petitioner’s request before the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board for consideration under the extant law and judicial pronouncements. The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision governing remission.
Source reference: pp. 3–4Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner had completed more than 14 years of actual custody and had also accumulated the stated period of remission.
Source reference: p. 3In view of that custody record and the applicable judicial pronouncements, it held that the authorities should have placed his request before the Board. A counter-affidavit was unnecessary to resolve the matter, and the Court directed the authorities to complete the reporting and referral process.
Source reference: pp. 3–4Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the Inspector General of Jail and Reforms Services, Bihar, or the concerned authority, to obtain the necessary reports within two months of receiving or being presented with the order and place the petitioner’s case before the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board.
The Board must decide the matter in accordance with the extant law and judicial pronouncements within the following two months.
Source reference: p. 4Acts & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Indian Penal Code, 18603
Original Court PDF
Kamleswari YadavvsThe State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
