Jharkhand HC sets aside rejection of life convict’s premature release plea
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK Ranchi, July 13: The Jharkhand High Court on Monday set aside the State Sentence Review Board’s decision rejecting…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
Ranchi, July 13: The Jharkhand High Court on Monday set aside the State Sentence Review Board’s decision rejecting the premature release of life convict Narendra Singh @ Pandit and directed the Board to reconsider his case in accordance with the State’s remission policy within three months.
Convict challenged rejection of remission plea
Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay passed the order while allowing a writ petition challenging the State Sentence Review Board’s notification dated March 28, 2025, which had rejected the convict’s plea for premature release.
Narendra Singh @ Pandit, who is serving a life sentence after being convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, had sought release on the ground that he had completed nearly 23 years of actual imprisonment and 29 years in custody, including remission.
His conviction was upheld by the Jharkhand High Court in 2017, while the Supreme Court dismissed his special leave petition in July 2023. The apex court had directed the State to consider his remission application in accordance with the applicable policy within two months.
Review Board cited gravity of offence
The State Sentence Review Board rejected the plea, observing that the convict had participated in the premeditated murder of a popular public representative for political reasons. It held that his premature release would send a wrong message to society and undermine public faith in the democratic system.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the Board had ignored the Probation Officer’s favourable report recommending his premature release on humanitarian grounds and failed to consider the criteria prescribed under the State Government’s remission policy.
ALSO READ: BJP says Jharkhand govt recycled Davos investment deals
Court finds remission policy not properly applied
The High Court found that the Board had focused primarily on the nature of the offence while overlooking the mandatory parameters laid down in the State Government’s notification dated May 26, 2011.
The Court noted that the remission policy requires the Board to examine five factors, including whether the offence affected society at large or was private in nature, the likelihood of the convict committing future offences, whether the possibility of reoffending had diminished, whether continued incarceration remained necessary, and the convict’s social and political status.
Justice Mukhopadhyay observed that the petitioner’s period of incarceration and other relevant circumstances had “taken a back seat,” while the political nature of the murder had been given overriding importance.
Fresh decision within three months
Holding that the Board had failed to apply the prescribed guidelines properly, the Court quashed the notification dated March 28, 2025, and remanded the matter to the State Sentence Review Board for fresh consideration under the 2011 remission policy.
The Court directed the Board to complete the exercise within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order.
