2026:JHHC:12178 -1- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 ---- Amrendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Umesh Sharma, aged about 53 years, resident of Sultanpur, PO and PS Makhdumpur, District Jahanabad, Bihar .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3.The Inspector General of Prison, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 4.The Jail Superintendent, Birsa Munda, Central Jail, Hotwar, PO Hotwar, PS Khelgaon, District Ranchi 5.The Union of India 6.The Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi, PO and PS New Delhi, District New Delhi 7.The Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi, through the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi, PO GPO, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mrs Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI Mr. Rituraj, AC to SC-VI Miss Deepika Jejowan, AC to SC-VI For the Union of India :- Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, CGC Mrs Kiran Bushma Khoya, CGC For the CBI :- Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Ayush, AC to ASGI ---- 13/24.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent State, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Union of India as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 2. This matter has been assigned by Hon’ble The Chief Justice 2026:JHHC:12178 -2- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 before this Court and that is how, this case is listed today. 3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release of the petitioner from jail as he is in jail custody for 24 ½ years in connection with Sessions Trial No.107 of 2003, corresponding to R.C. Case No.17(S)/1994(R) (Bistupur P.S. Case no.346/93) in which the petitioner has been convicted under section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount S.I. for three months and further under section 27 of the Arms Act he has been convicted for R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, S.I for 15 days, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted in this case for the offence registered under section 302 of the IPC read with section 120B IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No.107 of 2003, corresponding to R.C. Case No.17(S)/1994(R) (Bistupur P.S. Case no.346/93) and thereafter the petitioner was apprehended and then the police has investigated the matter and subsequently the matter was handed over to the C.B.I on 29.7.1994 and the same was registered as R.C. Case No.17(S)/94, thereafter the C.B.I has investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner along with other accused persons. She next 2026:JHHC:12178 -3- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 submits that the trial was conducted and by the judgment dated 24.01.2006 and order of sentence passed on 27.01.2006 and the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.158 of 1998 and S.T. No.107 of 2003, corresponding to R.C. Case No.17(S)/1994(R) has been pleased to sentence the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred Cr.Appeal (DB) No.365 of 2006 along with another analogous Appeal being Cr.Appeal (DB) No.177 of 2006 and Cr.Appeal (DB) No.356 of 2006 and the said appeal was decided by the judgment dated 15.10.2015 by rejecting the Appeal filed by the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner is languishing in Birsa Munda Central Jail after the Appeal was dismissed. She next submits that the petitioner is in jail custody since 24.01.2006 and it is proved in light of the Annexure-2 which is a document which has been provided under the Right to Information Act to the petitioner. She next submits that by letter dated 20.3.2024, the Inspector General of Prisons, Jharkhand made correspondence with the Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, for pre-mature release of the petitioner after taking confirmation from the Central Government, under Section 435 of Cr.P.C since the matter is related to the C.B.I. 5. In light of Section 435 Cr.PC corresponding to Section 477 of the BNSS, 2023, the opinion sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, it has been transpired to the petitioner 2026:JHHC:12178 -4- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 that the State Government has wrote letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India recommending for pre-mature release of the petitioner vide Memo No.2388 dated 18.04.2024. She next submits that, in spite of the request made by the Government of Jharkhand, the Home Ministry, Government of India has not taken any action and in view of that background, the present petition has been filed. She next submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has taken a decision on 12.02.2025 whereby the recommendation of Government of Jharkhand has been turned-down and the remission application, in view of that, has been rejected. She then submits that the said order dated 12.02.2025 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition by way of filing I.A. No.8012 of 2025 which was allowed by the order dated 01.09.2025. She submits in view of that, the rejection order of the Government of India is also under challenge. She next submits that the Government of India has rejected the said petition/ application only considering the nature of the crime. She next submits that the rest of the consideration with regard to remission has not been taken care of by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in passing of the said order, and as such, the said order may kindly be set aside. She also submits that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is a member of the Union and due to dispute in the Union, the said occurrence has taken place, in which the 2026:JHHC:12178 -5- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 deceased has died. She also submits that there is no adverse communication against the petitioner and in view of that, Government of Jharkhand has recommended for providing remission of the petitioner to the Government of India. She then submits that before sending the said recommendation, the Government of Jharkhand has done all the exercises annexing all the document, and then the recommendation was sent. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the State has already taken exercise and recommended to the Government of India to take a decision on the remission of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Central Bureau of India (CBI) along with the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India opposed the prayer and submit that the learned authorities have considered the gravity of the crime and has rightly passed the order and the said decision has been taken on the basis of the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. In view of above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner has been convicted under section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount S.I. for three months and further under section 27 of the Arms Act he has 2026:JHHC:12178 -6- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 been convicted for R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, S.I for 15 days, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner is in custody for 24 ½ years as per the calculation provided to the petitioner sought under the Right to Information Act and the petitioner is in jail custody. 9. There is the policy of the State Government of pre-mature release after completion of 14 years from the date of conviction and that policy is of the year 1984 and after completion of 20 years, the convict is entitled to get the benefit of remission. 10. Admittedly, the occurrence took place in the year 1993 and the petitioner was convicted in the year 2006 and in view of that, the case of the petitioner is covered in light of the 1984 policy. 11. The Government of Jharkhand has come forward with the new policy in the year 2007 and this aspect of the matter has already been set at-rest in a batch of Criminal Writ Petition (W.P.(Cr.) No.262 of 2014 and analogous cases and the said order was passed considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Jagdish, reported in [(2010) 4 SCC 216] and in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the policy which was prevailing on the date of consideration for pre-mature release of a life convict, the benefit of the same should be given to the convict. 12. In light of the provisions made under Sub-section(2) of 2026:JHHC:12178 -7- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 Section 432 Cr.PC corresponding to Sections 473 and 477 of BNSS, 2023, which provides that appropriate Government may take opinion of the Presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the person making an application for remission has been convicted. Thus, the power is there with the State Government to suspend or remit the sentence. For ready reference, Section 432(2) Cr.P.C as well as sections 473 and 477 BNSS, 2023 are quoted hereinbelow: “Sec.432(2)Cr.P.C. Power to suspend or remit sentence. Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists” 13. Section 473 of the BNSS, 2023 is quoted as below: S.473. BNSS, 2023. Power to suspend or remit sentences.— (1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced. (2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists. (3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer, without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. (4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or 2026:JHHC:12178 -8- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will. (5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with: Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a sentence of fine) passed on a person above the age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and— (a) where such petition is made by the person sentenced, it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or (b) where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail. (6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any section of this Sanhita or of any other law, which restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or his property. (7) In this section and in section 474, the expression “appropriate Government” means,— (a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government; (b) in other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed. 14. Section 477 of the BNSS, 2023 is quoted as below: S.477, BNSS, 2023. State Government to act after concurrence with Central Government in certain cases.—(1) The powers conferred by Sections 473 and 474 upon the State Government to remit or commute a sentence, in any case where the sentence is for an offence— (a) which was investigated by any agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Sanhita; or (b) which involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government; or (c) which was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, shall not be exercised by the State Government except after concurrence with the Central Government. (2) No order of suspension, remission or commutation of sentences passed by the State Government in relation to a person, who has been convicted of offences, some of which relate to matters to which the executive power of the Union extends, and who has been sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment which are to run concurrently, shall have effect unless an order for the suspension, remission or commutation, as the case may be, of such sentences has also been made by the Central Government in relation to the offences committed 2026:JHHC:12178 -9- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 by such person with regard to matters to which the executive power of the Union extends. 15. In view of above Section, the State Government is having the power to suspend or remit the sentence under the said section. By a letter, which has been discussed in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Government of Jharkhand has already recommended for remission of the petitioner. In the said letter, the opinion of the Probationary Officer, CBI Judge, all annexed, based on the above opinion, the Government of Jharkhand has forwarded the same to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, for taking a decision. 16. There is no doubt that it is the absolute discretion of the State Government to decide the application for remission as to whether it should be allowed or not? as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Ratan Singh reported in (1976) 3 SCC 470. Section 432 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 473 of the BNSS, 2023, empowers the appropriate Government to remit the whole or a part of the sentence. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “9. From a review of the authorities and the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure the following propositions emerge: “(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 2026:JHHC:12178 -10- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 Criminal Procedure; (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; (3) that the appropriate Government which is empowered to grant remission under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the Government of the State where the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced, that is to say, the transferor State and not the transferee State where the prisoner may have been transferred at his instance under the Transfer of Prisoners Act; and (4) that where the transferee State feels that the accused has completed a period of 20 years it has merely to forward the request of the prisoner to the concerned State Government, that is to say, the Government of the State where the prisoner was convicted and sentenced and even if this request is rejected by the State Government the order of the Government cannot be interfered with by a High Court in its writ jurisdiction. (emphasis supplied)” 17. It is crystal clear that the discretion vests with the Government to suspend or remit the sentence, but that order must be in accordance with law and not arbitrarily. It is well known that the prerogative of the executive is subject to the rule of law and fairness in State action embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case of State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, reported in [(2000) 3 SCC 394], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily and it must be fair and reasonable. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “9. The circular granting remission is authorized under the law. It prescribes limitations both as regards the prisoners who are eligible and those who have been excluded. Conditions for remission of sentence to the prisoners who are eligible are also prescribed by the circular. Prisoners have no absolute right for remission of their sentence unless except what is prescribed by law and the circular issued thereunder. That special remission shall not apply to a prisoner convicted of a particular offence can certainly be a relevant consideration for the State Government not to exercise power of remission in that case. Power of remission, however, cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Decision to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned.” 2026:JHHC:12178 -11- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 18. The Court can review the decision of the Government to determine whether it was arbitrary or not and the said power cannot be usurp the power of the Government and grant remission itself and if the case is made out, the Court can direct for reconsidering the matter. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the arbitrary action of remission in the case of Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, reported in [(2000) 7 SCC 626], wherein, in paragraphs 8 and 9, it has been held as under: “8. If we look at the reasons given by the Government, we are afraid that the same are palpably irrelevant or devoid of substance. Firstly, the views of the witnesses who had been examined in the case or the persons in the locality cannot determine whether the petitioner would be a danger if prematurely released because the persons in the locality and the witnesses may still live in the past and their memories are being relied upon without reference to the present and the report of the jail authorities to the effect that the petitioner has reformed himself to a large extent. Secondly, by reason of one's age one cannot say whether the convict has still potentiality of committing the crime or not, but it depends on his attitude to matters, which is not being taken note of by the Government. Lastly, the suggestion that the incident is not an individual act of crime but a sequel of the political feud affecting society at large, whether his political views have been changed or still carries the same so as to commit crime has not been examined by the Government. 9. On the basis of the grounds stated above the Government could not have rejected the claim made by the petitioner. In the circumstances, we quash the order made by the Government and remit the matter to it again to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of what has been stated by this Court earlier and our comments made in this order as to the grounds upon which the Government refused to act on the report of the jail authorities and also to take note of the change in the law by enacting the West Bengal Correctional Services Act 32 of 1992 and to decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. After issuing rule the same is made absolute.” 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajan v. State of Tamilnadu, reported in [(2019) 14 SCC 114] held that the Court 2026:JHHC:12178 -12- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 cannot supplant its view in a decision taken by the State, however, in an appropriate case, direction can be issued to the authorities to reconsider the representation of the convict. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Court is having power to review the decision of the Government regarding acceptance or rejection of an order of remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 473 of BNSS, 2023 and only it is to seen whether the decision is arbitrary or not. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangeet v. State of Haryana, reported in [(2013) 2 SCC 452] observed that if an application is being made by the convict, the appropriate Government is required to approach the Presiding Judge of the Court. 22. It is further well settled that the appropriate Government should not mechanically follow the opinion of the Presiding Judge if the opinion of the learned Judge is not fulfilling the requirement of Section 432 (2) Cr.P.C. and that is not in accordance with the guideline issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra). The Government can make further request to the Presiding Judge for fresh opinion. 23. In the case in hand, the case of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner was involved in crime of murder and apart from that, in the impugned order, the other aspects of the matter have not been considered. Looking to the impugned order, it transpires that the said order has been passed not 2026:JHHC:12178 -13- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 inconformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra) wherein the guidelines are framed, and these guidelines are as under: (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. 24. In that case, it was reiterated that while deciding the application of the convict for premature release, these facts are required to be considered. The opinion must be in teeth of statute under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. corresponding to Sections 473 and 477 of BNSS, 2023. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently considered Halsbury's Laws of India (Administration Law) with regard to reasons in the case of Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, reported in [(2022) 12 SCC 52] wherein at paragraph 28, it has been observed as under: “28. In his opinion dated 21.07.2021 the Special Judge, Durg referred to the crime for which the petitioner was convicted and simply stated that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be appropriate to grant remission. The opinion is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 432(2) of the Cr.P.C. which require that the Presiding Judge’s opinion must be accompanied by reasons. Halsbury’s Laws of India (Administrative Law) notes that the requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons. Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate. The following extract is useful for our consideration: “[005.066] Adequacy of reasons Sufficiency of reasons, in a particular case, depends on the facts of each 2026:JHHC:12178 -14- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 case. It is not necessary for the authority to write out a judgement as a court of law does. However, at least, an outline of process of reasoning must be given. It may satisfy the requirement of giving reasons if relevant reasons have been given for the order, though the authority has not set out all the reasons or some of the reasons which had been argued before the court have not been expressly considered by the authority. A mere repetition of the statutory language in the order will not make the order a reasoned one. Mechanical and stereotype reasons are not regarded as adequate. A speaking order is one that speaks of the mind of the adjudicatory body which passed the order. A reason such as ’the entire examination of the year 1982 is cancelled’, cannot be regarded as adequate because the statement does explain as to why the examination has been cancelled; it only lays down the punishment without stating the causes therefor.” 26. In view of the above, the mechanical and stereotype reasons cannot be said to be a good ground as such the order of Government of India is not in accordance with law on the point of remission. 27. Accordingly, the petitioner’s application for remission is required to be reconsidered by the Government of India, Ministry of Home, as such, the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India is, hereby, quashed. 28. The matter is further remitted back to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to take a fresh decision in light of the discussions made hereinabove within twelve weeks. 29. This writ petition (Cr.) being W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024 is, hereby, allowed and disposed of, accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 24.04.2026 SI/ A.F.R.