Kamesh Singh @ Kamlesh Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Dept. Of Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.420 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- PATNA ===========================================================

1. Kamesh Singh @ Kamlesh Singh, son of Ramchandra Singh, Resident of Village- Govindpur, P.S.- Khushrupur (Fatuha), District- Patna.

2. Sunil Kumar Singh @ Sunil Kumar, Son of Dharmdeo Singh, resident of Village- Bhusaula Danapur, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Dept. of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary Dept. of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Inspector General Prison & Reform Services Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Secretary Law Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. Additional Director General of Police Crime & Investigation Dept. Bihar, Patna.

6. Director Parviksha Services Bihar, Patna.

7. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar.

8. The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra.

9. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Buxar.

10. The Jail Superintendent Divisional Jail, Saran at Chapra.

11. The State Sentence Remission Board through its President/ Chairman. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Ray, Mr. Virendra Kr. Ray, Advocates For the State : Mr. Vikas Kumar, A.C. to A.G. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN) Date: 05-05-2017 Heard parties.

Through this writ application, the petitioners seek quashing of the decision of the State Sentence Remission Board communicated vide letter no.5015 dated 17.08.2016 by which the

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.420 of 2017 dt.05-05-2017 2 / 2 petitioner's request for premature release was refused on the ground that opinion of the Presiding Judge was not clear. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State taking a stand in paragraph no.8 that opinion of the Presiding Court was again sought, which has been received and the same would be put up before the Remission Board in next meeting for its consideration in accordance with law and, thereafter, the department concerned will act accordingly.

Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to put up the matter for consideration of the Board in its next meeting. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) (Vikash Jain, J) Sanjay-II/- U