No Legal Bar U/S 475 BNSS On Considering Premature Release Of Convicts After 14 Years Actual Imprisonment: Patna High Court

The Court further held that the refusal to consider premature release merely on the ground that the convict had not completed 20 years of incarceration with remission was unjustified and contrary to the statutory scheme governing remission and premature release.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal concerning the consideration of premature release of a life convict whose application had been deferred by the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of incarceration with remission despite having already undergone more than 15 years of actual custody.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar observed: “After going through the relevant provisions of sections 432, 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 … which corresponds to sections 473, 474 and 475 respectively, of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 … we find that so far as section 433A of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, which corresponds to section 475 of BNSS, there is no change in it, hence, there remains no legal embargo at all for considering the case of a convict for premature release who has been sentenced to life imprisonment after serving the actual period of 14 years of imprisonment.”

The Bench further observed: “Rule 481 of the 2012 Manual, explicitly mandates that every convicted prisoner … undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and covered by the provisions of section 433A of the Cr.P.C. (section 475 of BNSS), shall be eligible to be considered for premature release from prison immediately after serving out the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment i.e. without the remissions.”

Advocate Manish Kumar appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Ajay Mishra appeared for the State.

Background

The matter arose after the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board observed that the appellant’s case for premature release would be considered only upon completion of 20 years of incarceration with remission, despite the appellant having already undergone more than 15 years of actual custody.

The State relied upon an affidavit stating that completion of 20 years with remission was necessary in light of Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to Section 6 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and an executive letter issued in 1984.

The High Court sought an explanation from the authorities as to why the appellant’s case had not been considered despite completion of more than 15 years of actual imprisonment and despite the State itself acknowledging that the case did not fall under the exceptions contained in Rule 481 of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012.

Court’s Observation

The High Court held that the explanation furnished by the prison authorities for refusing to consider premature release was “entirely unacceptable”. The Bench observed that reliance on an executive letter issued in 1984 could not override the statutory framework contained in the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012.

The Court extensively referred to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010), reiterating the reformative purpose underlying remission policies and premature release. Quoting the judgment, the Bench observed: “Punishment should not be regarded as the end but as only the means to an end. The object of punishment must not be to wreak vengeance but to reform and rehabilitate the criminal.”

The Court rejected the State’s reliance on Section 57 IPC corresponding to Section 6 BNS. Referring to Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008), the Bench observed: “Section 57 of the Penal Code does not in any way limit the punishment of imprisonment for life to a term of twenty years.”

The High Court explained that Section 57 IPC merely provides a legal fiction for calculating fractions of punishment under specific provisions and cannot be treated as a substantive provision mandating 20 years’ incarceration for consideration of premature release.

The Court further examined Sections 432, 433 and 433A CrPC and their corresponding provisions under the BNSS. The Bench observed that Section 475 BNSS, corresponding to Section 433A CrPC, remains unchanged and therefore continues to permit consideration of premature release after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment in eligible cases.

Relying upon Sukhdev Yadav alias Pehalwan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025), the Court observed that Section 433A CrPC specifically governs life imprisonment cases and prevails over contrary executive instructions.

The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar @ Bittu (2021), wherein the Supreme Court clarified that a prisoner falling within Section 433A CrPC becomes eligible for consideration of remission after undergoing 14 years of actual imprisonment.

The Bench further observed that Rule 481 of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 itself expressly provides that every life convict covered under Section 433A CrPC shall be eligible for consideration of premature release immediately after serving 14 years of actual imprisonment without remission.

The High Court additionally clarified that the pendency of remission consideration cannot be justified based on backlog or administrative delay. Referring to Satish alias Sabbe v. State of U.P. (2021), the Court observed: “Once a law has been made by the appropriate legislature, then it is not open for the executive authorities to surreptitiously subvert its mandate.”

The Court also took note of the pendency of numerous premature release applications before the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board and directed reconsideration of cases that had been excluded solely because the prisoners had not completed 20 years of incarceration.

The Bench further observed that consideration for premature release can proceed even if the convict is on bail, since eligibility depends on the total sentence undergone and not merely physical incarceration.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court held that there exists no legal embargo under Section 475 BNSS corresponding to Section 433A CrPC for considering premature release of a life convict after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment, where the case does not fall under the exceptions prescribed in Rule 481 of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012.

The Court held that the decision to defer consideration of the appellant’s premature release until completion of 20 years with remission was unsustainable in law and accordingly directed the Remission Board to reconsider the appellant’s case afresh in accordance with law.

The Court also directed reconsideration of similarly situated prisoners whose applications had been excluded on the erroneous ground that they had not completed 20 years of incarceration.

Cause Title: Jagarnath Thakur v. The State of Bihar

Click here to read/download Judgment