Mandamus Issued Directing State Sentence Remission Board to Consider Premature Release After 14 Years Actual Incarceration

The petitioner was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 494 of 2011 (arising from Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 63 of 2008) for offenses under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

On 27.03.2017, he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

While the conviction under Section 307/34 IPC was subsequently set aside by the High Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 513 of 2017, the other convictions were upheld.

The petitioner filed this writ seeking a writ of mandamus, claiming he has completed over 14 years of actual physical incarceration and over 20 years with remission, yet his case has not been referred to the State Sentence Remission Board for premature release consideration under the 1984/2002 policy.

Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to refer the petitioner’s case to the State Sentence Remission Board for consideration of premature release upon completion of the requisite period of incarceration.

The court applied the statutory framework governing premature release and executive clemency, specifically referencing the State’s remission policies (Notification No. 3106, dated 10.12.2002/1984 policy).

These rules mandate that life convicts who have completed 14 years of actual physical imprisonment and 20 years with remissions are eligible to have their cases reviewed by the State Sentence Remission Board for potential release, subject to reports from statutory authorities.

The court noted the petitioner's undisputed assertion that he has served more than 14 years of actual custody and 20 years with remission.

It observed that despite meeting the threshold criteria under the applicable state policy, the authorities had failed to initiate the procedural requirement of sending a proposal to the Remission Board.

The Court determined that the petitioner possesses a right to have his case *considered* by the Board in accordance with the law, which necessitates the Jail Superintendent and other respondents to provide the necessary reports and documentation to the Board for a formal decision.

The Board was further directed to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law within a subsequent period of six weeks.

The petition was disposed of with these directions.