Jharkhand High Court
Amrendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-1- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-2- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-3- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-4- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-5- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-6- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-7- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178remitted 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
-8- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178by 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
-9- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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.”
-10- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-11- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-12- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178
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
-13- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
2026:JHHC:12178case. 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.
-14- W.P.(Cr.) No.671 of 2024
[ad_1]
Source link
