[ 2025:JHHC:38485] 1 W.P.(Cr.). No. 530 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 530 of 2024 Anil Sharma, aged about 64 years, Son of Shri Nandesh Prasad Sharma, Resident of Sharma Lane, Opp. G.E.L. Church Complex, Main Road, P.O. and P.S. Hindpiri, District- Ranchi / Jharkhand ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Inspector General of Prisons, Τ.Α. Division, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District Ranchi/ Jharkhand. 4. The Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, P.O. Booty, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi/ Jharkhand. 5. The Superintendent, L.N.J.P. Narayan Hazaribagh Central Jail, P.O. and P.S.-Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh/ Jharkhand 6. The Superintendent, Central Jail Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District- Dumka / Jharkhand …..Opposite Parties/ Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M.Tripathy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal , Adv. Ms. Nutan Kumari Sharma , Adv. For the State : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG IA For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Yogesh Modi , Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This writ petitioner has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the Annexure 5 which is the decision of the State Sentence Review Board dated 22.06.2023 and also for quashing the notification dated 19.02.2025 issued by the Jharkhand State Sentence Review Board wherein, the claim for the premature release of the petitioner was rejected at Item no. ‘25’. [ 2025:JHHC:38485] 2 W.P.(Cr.). No. 530 of 2024 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and other offencs also and was awarded death sentence vide judgment dated 01.04.2002 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner cum – Special Judge IV Ranchi in S.T. case no. 443 of 1999. The petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal (DB) 166 of 2002 which was heard and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29.11.2002 but the sentence of the petitioner was modified to Imprisonment for Life while his conviction was maintained. The petitioner claims that he has been in custody for more than 24 years excluding remission and more than 27 years including remission, as on 16.03.2024. The writ petition (Cr.) no. 412 of 2018 filed by the petitioner, was disposed of with the direction to the concerned respondents for considering the case of the petitioner in the matter of his premature release by strictly following the 1984 policy dated 28.02.1984 but the State Sentence Review Board failed to consider the direction of this Court, in passing the order dated 22.06.2023 by not considering the case of the petitioner, under the 1984 policy of the State of Bihar and passed an order mechanically without appreciating the said direction of this Court. 4. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and Others reported in 2025 INSC 969, it is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the facts of that case where accused was sentenced to Life Imprisonment for the fixed term of 20 years of actual sentence without remission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case having completed his period of jail term, is entitled to be released forthwith; it is submitted that in this case, as the petitioner has served the jail sentence of more than 20 years hence [ 2025:JHHC:38485] 3 W.P.(Cr.). No. 530 of 2024 in view of the said judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioner be released from the custody forthwith. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent -State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the facts of Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and Others reported in 2025 INSC 969 (supra), is different from the facts of this case and unlike that case, in this case the petitioner has not been sentenced to Life Imprisonment for any specified period and the consequence is that he has to serve out the sentence till he breathes his last, in the jail custody. Of course, if there is any scheme of the Government for premature release, certainly the petitioner is entitled to be considered for his release in terms of the said scheme of the Government. Hence, it is submitted that the ratio of Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and Others reported in 2025 INSC 969 (supra) is not applicable in this case as the facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of this case, as in this case the court sentencing the petitioner has not specified the life imprisonment to be a fixed period of 20 years. It is next submitted that the petitioner was not considered for premature release vide Annexure 5 because of the strong possibility of gang war and disturbance of public peace of the society and also considering the conduct of the petitioner that he escaped from the judicial custody earlier and also the fact that the convict murdered another accused inside the jail which is most heinous in nature. It is further submitted that in terms of the scheme for premature release in the meanwhile, on 01.09.2025, the case for pre-mature release of the petitioner was again considered but the same was also rejected but the petitioner has not challenged the same. 6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the State that the petitioner cannot claim right for premature release but the only thing the petitioner is entitled to is, his right to be considered for premature release in terms of the scheme formed by the State Government. It is lastly submitted that keeping in view the fact [ 2025:JHHC:38485] 4 W.P.(Cr.). No. 530 of 2024 that for cogent reasons, the State Sentence Review Board has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for premature release, this Writ Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mentioned here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxman Naskar (Life Convict) v. State of W.B. and Another reported in (2000) 7 SCC 626, para 3 of which reads as under :- “3. After examining the legal position as to the nature of the powers arising under Section 432 CrPC read with Article 161 of the Constitution and the relevant Rules relating to remission of sentences, it is observed in State of M.P. v. Ratan Singh [(1976) 3 SCC 470 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 428] as under: (SCC Headnote) “(1)That a sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at the end of 20 years including the remissions, because the administrative rules framed under the various jail manuals or under the Prisons Act cannot supersede the statutory provisions of the Penal Code, 1860. A sentence of imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoner unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or a part of the sentence under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (2) That the appropriate Government has the undoubted discretion to remit or refuse to remit the sentence and where it refuses to remit the sentence no writ can be issued directing the State Government to release the prisoner;” (emphasis supplied) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has approbated the principle of law settled in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ratan Singh and Others reported in (1976) 3 SCC 470 that imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoner unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or a part of the sentence; as per the scheme. Since the appropriate Government has the undoubted discretion to remit or refuse to remit the sentence and where it refuses to remit the sentence, no writ can be [ 2025:JHHC:38485] 5 W.P.(Cr.). No. 530 of 2024 issued directing the State Government to release the prisoner. So, it is forthcoming from the same that a convict does not have the right to be released prematurely but only to be considered for premature release in terms of the scheme formulated by the Government. 8. So far as the judgment in the case of Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and Others reported in 2025 INSC 969 (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of this case as unlike that case, the Life Imprisonment in this case is Life Imprisonment simpliciter which means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoner; whereas in the case of Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan, it was the Life Imprisonment for a fixed period of 20 years. As the undisputed fact remains that in this case, the Life Imprisonment was the Life Imprisonment simpliciter, which means the sentence for the entire life of the prisoner and the Sentence Review Board has rejected the case of the petitioner for premature release from the custody for sound and cogent reasons. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with Annexure 5 of this Writ Petition in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 12th December, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 03.01.2026