Jharkhand High Court Quashes 'Preordained' Rejection Of Convict's Premature Release Plea, Says Review Board Failed To Analyse Reports

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay was hearing a writ petition filed by a life convict challenging Notification No. 1262 dated 25.03.2026 issued by the State Sentence Review Board, by which his claim for premature release had been rejected. At the time of consideration, the petitioner had completed 26 years of actual custody and 29 years including remission.

The petitioner had been convicted in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 12 of 1999, arising out of an incident in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, where he was alleged to have assaulted another inmate, Sudhir Singh @ Bhoma, resulting in his death. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC on 22.03.2002 and sentenced him to death. The High Court, in appeal, confirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life. His appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 30.04.2004.

The petitioner subsequently sought premature release. In 2018, the Prisoner Welfare Officer directed the Superintendent of Central Jail, Dumka to submit proposals of life convicts eligible for premature release under the applicable policy. The petitioner's name figured in the list of prisoners who had completed 14 years of actual custody and 20 years including remission. His application for premature release was thereafter forwarded to the Inspector General of Prisons.

Several reports placed before the authorities were favourable to the petitioner. An earlier Probation Officer's report took into account his age, family responsibilities and favourable opinion of villagers and society and observed that he was expected to lead the life of a good citizen upon release. Another Probation Officer's report recorded that he had been acquitted in all other cases and that premature release could appropriately be extended to him. A police enquiry also recorded that villagers had no objection to consideration of his premature release.

The petitioner's plea was nevertheless rejected repeatedly by the State Sentence Review Board. The latest rejection dated 25.03.2026 relied upon three grounds: that the petitioner had committed murder inside jail, that there was a strong possibility of gang war and disturbance of public peace and that he had previously escaped from judicial custody.

The High Court found that the Board had failed to meaningfully consider the material reports before it. The Court referred to the factors identified by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish for considering premature release, including whether there was a possibility of recurrence of crime, whether the convict had lost his potentiality to commit crime, whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continuing his confinement and the socio-economic condition of his family.

In contrast, the Probation Officer's report dated 18.09.2024 recorded that the petitioner was 63 years old, suffered from various ailments and that his propensity to commit crime had greatly reduced. His conduct in jail was cordial, he had been granted parole several times without any adverse report and he actively participated in reformative activities inside the jail.

The Court noted that the Review Board had made only a “fleeting reference” to the opinions of the Jail Superintendent, Superintendent of Police, Probation Officer and concerned court. It neither specified the contents of those reports nor explained how there remained a possibility of gang war and disturbance of public peace despite the Probation Officer having reached a contrary conclusion.

The Court also considered the applicable remission policy. It noted that for convicts governed by Section 433 CrPC, completion of 14 years of actual custody and 20 years of custody with remission makes a convict eligible for premature release, subject to other relevant factors such as the nature of the offence and propensity to commit crime. The Court further noted that, under the 2007 policy, the period of custody with remission could not exceed 25 years.

The Bench was also critical of the State's counter-affidavit, which made only a vague reference to the 2009 and 2011 resolutions without setting out their contents or addressing the petitioner's claim regarding mandatory release. The Court observed that when the petitioner had specifically raised a plea concerning mandatory release, it was incumbent upon the State to meet that plea with relevant material. A vague reference to subsequent resolutions, the Court said, not only obstructed the administration of justice but “subserves the wrongdoer”.

The Court further found that one of the grounds repeatedly relied upon by the Board i.e., the petitioner's previous escape from judicial custody, could not properly be used against him because he had already been acquitted in the criminal case relating to that alleged escape, with the benefit of doubt.

The Bench also took note of the petitioner's satisfactory conduct whenever he had been released on parole, his reduced propensity to commit crime and the absence of adverse material in the Probation Officer's report. It therefore found the reasons given for rejecting premature release to be unjustifiable.

The Court concluded that the State Sentence Review Board had “treaded on the beaten path”. The rejection order had been passed mechanically, without discussing the reports which formed the basis for the decision or analysing their contents. The Court observed that the order gave the impression that the outcome was “preordained”.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed Notification No. 1262 dated 25.03.2026 insofar as it concerned the petitioner and remanded his premature release plea to the State Sentence Review Board for fresh consideration.

The Court directed that the petitioner's case be placed before the Board positively at its next meeting and that the Board pass a detailed and reasoned order after considering the observations made by the High Court and the directions of the Supreme Court in Rohit Chaturvedi.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Case Title:.

Case Number: 

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Sabiuddin, Adv.

For the State: AC to Sr. A.A.G.