Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:34201 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (Cr.) No. 398 of 2025 Umesh Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Saryug Singh, R/o Village Nirsa, P.O & P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)--- --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Joint Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. Inspector General of Prisons, T.A. Division, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O & P.S. Dhurva, District Ranchi 4. The Superintendent, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribag, P.O. Reformatory, P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribag --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: M/s Shailesh Kr. Singh, Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocates For the Resp.-State: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C-IV Mr. Divyam, A.C to S.C-IV Mr. Suman Marandi, A.C to S.C-IV --- 10 / 17.11.2025 Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, seeks permission to amend the prayer made in the writ application by incorporating another prayer, also challenging the order dated 01.09.2025 as contained in Memo No. 22/Bandi Vivid-10/2024-3503/Jharkhand, passed by the State Sentence Review Board, whereby prayer of the petitioner for release on remission was once again rejected, during the pendency of this writ application. Prayer is allowed. Let such amendment be made in para-1 and prayer portion of this writ application during course of the day by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the order dated 19.02.2025 contained in Memo No. 22/Bandi Vivid-10/2024-1104/ Jharkhand (Annexure-4) and order dated 01.09.2025 contained in Memo No. 22/Bandi Vivid- 10/2024-3503/Jharkhand (Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit), both passed by the State Sentence Review Board, Jharkhand issued under the signature of Joint Secretary to the Government, Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and wherein, prayer of the petitioner for his premature release has been rejected on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner, who was convicted in Sessions Trial Case No. 126 of 2001 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of the sitting M.L.A. of Nirsa Shri Gurudas Chatterjee and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, was very heinous in nature. 2. 3. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide W.P (Cr.) No. 81 of 2022, seeking similar relief as his earlier application for premature release was rejected. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2023, passed in the aforesaid writ application, remanded the matter to the Remission Board for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. The Remission Board again considered the prayer of the petitioner for his release on remission after considering the report of the Jail Authority and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad, and rejected the same. Though, the Jail Authority has not made any adverse remarks against the petitioner, but the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad has opined that if the petitioner is released on remission, then good message will not go to the society and, the people will lose faith in the administration of justice. 5. Perused the report of the State Sentence Review Board dated 19.02.2025. From perusal of the report, it appears that the State Sentence Review Board has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release on remission because the offence alleged is related to the murder of the sitting M.L.A. in broad daylight in brutal manner. 6. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the State Sentence Review Board has completely disregarded the settled proposition of law and the report of the Jail Authority. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 30 years. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jaswant Singh and others versus State of Chhattisgarh and Another reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 35], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-22 has held which reads as under: “22. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the presiding judge took into account the factors which have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (supra). These factors include assessing (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. In Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (supra) and State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, this Court has reiterated that these factors will be considered while deciding the application of a convict for premature release.” Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Laxman Naskar versus Union of India reported in [(2010) 4 SCC 216]. 3. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also pointed out that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments like cancer. He has also undergone heart surgery. 7. Perused the report of the Jail Authority which is at page-51 of the supplementary counter affidavit, wherein the Jail Authority has reported that during the period of his incarceration, his conduct was good. It was also reported that the petitioner was not of criminal mentality. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (Supra) has laid down the factors which should be taken into account while deciding the prayer for remission of a convict. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the factors which should be taken into account are, whether the offence affects the society at large; the probability of the crime being repeated ; the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison and the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. Every offence relating to the murder is diabolical in nature and only on the basis of the facts of the case, prayer for remission cannot be rejected. Other factors which should be taken into consideration are the conduct of the convict during the period of his incarceration, socio-economic condition of the convict and the fact whether convict can again commit the crime of serious nature. 9. From the report of the Jail Authority, it appears that the conduct of the convict during the period of his incarceration was good. From the report of the Probation Officer (Annexure-10), it appears that if the petitioner is released, there is no likelihood that he will again commit serious offence. It appears that one of the co-convict Shiv Shankar has been released by the State Sentence Review Board on remission. 10. Considering the entire facts of this case, the impugned order 19.02.2025 contained in Memo No. 22/Bandi Vivid-10/2024-1104/ Jharkhand (Annexure-4) and order dated 01.09.2025 contained in Memo No. 22/Bandi Vivid-10/2024- 3503/Jharkhand, passed by the State Sentence Review Board, are set aside. State Sentence Review Board, shall pass an order for release of the petitioner within three weeks from receipt of this order. 11. This writ application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J) November 17, 2025 Ranjeet/ Uploaded