1 W.P.(Cr.) No. 293 of 2026 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:20680 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 293 of 2026 Narendra Singh @ Pandit, son of Late Madan Mohan Singh, resident of House No. 636, New Kalimati Road, Garabasa, PO and PS: Golmuri, District: East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand). ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi; 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi; 3. Inspector General (Prison), Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi; 4. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, PO and PS: Sakchi, Town: Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum; 5. Superintendent, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, PO and PS: Ghaghidih, Town: Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum; 6. Probation Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, PO and PS: Sakchi, Town: Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum; 7. Jharkhand State Sentence Review Board, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO and PS: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi. … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to Sr.AAG --- 04/ 13.07.2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shubham Gautam, learned AC to Sr.AAG. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notification issued vide Memo No. 1397 dated 28.03.2025 by which the plea for premature release of the petitioner has been rejected by the State Sentence Review Board. The petitioner has further prayed for his immediate release as the petitioner has completed 29 years in custody with remission and 23 years in actual custody. 3. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to RI for life. The petitioner had preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1163/05 before this Court which however was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2017. The petitioner had preferred SLP 2 W.P.(Cr.) No. 293 of 2026 (Crl.) Diary No. 46798/2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2023 with an observation that the Jail Authorities shall ensure that an application for grant of remission is filed by the petitioner at the earliest and the respondent-State was directed to immediately consider the case of the petitioner for grant of remission in accordance with law and as per the applicable policy an appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of the order. Since the order dated 03.07.2023 was not complied with by the State authorities the petitioner had preferred a contempt application and during the pendency of the said application, respondent authorities have issued a notification vide Memo No. 1397 dated 28.03.2025 by which the prayer for grant of premature release of the petitioner has been refused and the said notification is impugned to the present writ application. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the Probation Officer is in favour of the premature release of the petitioner and it has been recommended that the petitioner be released on humanitarian ground. The petitioner has spent a total period of 22 years, 11 months and 25 days of actual custody as per the custody certificate dated 20.11.2025 but despite the said fact the State Sentence Review Board had rejected the claim for premature release of the petitioner on the ground that his release would sent a wrong message to the society and would undermine the faith of the common people on the democratic system of the country. The impugned notification dated 28.03.2025 is devoid of any reasons and the conditions which have to be considered in the light of the policy of the State Government for premature release. 5. Learned AC to Sr.AAG has submitted that the guidelines laid down in the various policies of the State Government for premature release have been taken into consideration by the State Sentence Review Board. It has been submitted that the petitioner was involved in a political murder and his release would be detrimental to the welfare of the society. 6. The impugned notification as contained in Memo No. 1397 dated 28.03.2025 so far as the consideration of the case of the petitioner is concerned is reflected in the following manner: “This Board again considered the case of Narendra Singh @ Pandit as per the guidelines of the State Government, in terms and conditions enumerated in Sankalp No. 2307 dated 26.05.2011, which was issued after the consolidation of Sankalp No. 1315 dated 18.04.2007 and Sankalp No. 3638 dated 10.09.2009. The Review Board, after due consideration, has come to the 3 W.P.(Cr.) No. 293 of 2026 conclusion that the case of convict Narendra Singh @ Pandit is not fit for granting the benefit of premature release on the following grounds: (1) The convict is undergoing sentence of R.I for life for the offence under section 302/34 of the IPC and R.I for 3 Years under section- 27 of the Arms Act, the Convict was Sentenced on 14.07.2005. (2) The Convict has committed heinous offence of killing a popular public representative in broad daylight for political reason in a premeditated manner along with other co-accused. Which sent shock waves to the entire downtrodden section of the society of the state. Thus, seeing the deep conspiracy the case was handed over to the CBI for investigation. The CBI after investigation submitted charge sheet against the convict under section-302/34 of the IPC & under section 27 of the Arms Act. (3) The offence committed by the convict has affected the common person's faith in the democratic system of the country. This offence can be termed a direct attack on the democratic system of the governance. The premature release of the convict would sent wrong message in the society and will bolster the criminals having similar intentions. This offence had affected the society at large. (4) Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances and taking into account the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Learned court in Laxman Naskar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors (AIR 2000 SC 986), this committee does not find it to be a fit case for the premature release of Narendra Singh @ Pandit.” 7. In order to appreciate as to whether the petitioner falls within the parameters of the guidelines enunciated in notification No. 2307 dated 26.05.2011 and whether the impugned notification dated 28.03.2025 has taken into consideration such guidelines or not perusal has been made of the policy dated 26.05.2011. The State Sentence Review Board has to take a decision for premature release of a convict only on satisfaction of the five guidelines as contained in the said notification and which in a translated version would read thus; (a) Whether the offence committed affects the society at large or is private in nature? (b) Whether the convict has the propensity to commit a crime in future? (c) Whether the chances of committing a crime by the convict has become diluted? (d) Whether it would be possible to keep the convict in custody for further period? (e) The social/ political status of the convict. 8. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the report of the Probation Officer dated 18.06.2018 wherein all the answers to the questions formulated in the notification dated 26.05.2011 have been given in the affirmative. Though the said report is about eight years back and none of the sides have brought on record the 4 W.P.(Cr.) No. 293 of 2026 latest report of the Probation Officer but what is stark on the face of record is that the State Sentence Review Board seems to have given a complete go by to the necessities spelt out in the notification dated 26.05.2011. The only consideration made by the State Sentence Review Board is the involvement of the petitioner in the murder of a public representative. The period of actual custody of the petitioner and the other circumstances necessary to consider such release has taken a back seat and the murder of a political person has adorned centre stage while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for premature release. 9. Thus, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned notification as contained in Memo No. 1397 dated 28.03.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Sentence Review Board to reconsider the case of the petitioner based on the guidelines laid down in notification No. 2307 dated 26.05.2011. The entire exercise, indicated above, should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. This writ application is allowed. 11. Pending I.A, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated: 13.07.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 13.07.2026