1. The Court has convened through Video Conferencing.

2. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amarnendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Jagannath Singh, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for pre-mature release, who is in jail to serve the sentence of life imprisonment in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 3.12.1999/6.12.1999 passed by the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 1997 arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station Huzoorpur, District Bahraich.

4. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person, along with other accused persons were convicted vide judgment and order dated 3.12.1999 and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 6.12.1999 in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 1997 arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station Huzoorpur, District Bahraich. He argued that on the remission/commutation of the sentences of the convicts for the pre-mature release from jail, aggrieved convicts had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6041 of 2018, wherein vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2018, this Court directed the State Government to lay down a transparent policy with regard to pre-mature release of the convicts. In compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16.04.2018, a Government Order dated 01.08.2018 was issued, laying down the principles, criteria, category and eligibility for a convict for remission/commutation of the sentence for pre-mature release.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order dated 01.08.2018, the petitioner has submitted an application for his pre-mature release from the jail on 04.07.2019 but no heed was paid, despite the fact that main accused of the case has been released in the year 2017. He further argued that the case of the petitioner falls under Category-2 (kha) of the Government Order dated 01.08.2018 since the petitioner has served the sentence from 03.02.2004 to 21.07.2015 in District Jail, Bahraich and from 21.07.2015 till date, he is serving the sentence in District Jail, Balrampur. He argued that the petitioner has completed the continuous rigorous imprisonment of about 21 years. Hence the instant writ petition.

6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, while drawing attention to Annexure no.3 to the supplementary counter affidavit, has argued that the representation for pre-mature release was considered by the State Government and the same was rejected vide order dated 10.12.2020 on the ground that there is possibility of disturbance of public order.

7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner for pre-mature release is absolutely vague one and without any cogent material or evidence inasmuch while rejecting the representation of the petitioner for pre-mature release, the State Government though has recorded that there would be possibility of disturbance of public order but oversight the fact that identical situated three persons, namely, Tej Bahadur Singh, Jhaba Singh and Janardan Pandey, were released pre-maturely. He also pointed that the case of the petitioner is a better footings to that of the case of the main accused, who were released pre-maturely by the State Government. He also argued that the District Level Committee has accepted in its meeting dated 28.05.2020, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. SCA-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit, that the petitioner has completed 21 years, 02 months and 15 days in jail as on 28.05.2020 and the conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and the case of the petitioner falls under category 2 (kha) but even then the claim of the petitioner for pre-mature release has been rejected by the .

8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner has completed 21 years, 02 months and 15 days in jail as on 28.05.2020 as is evident from perusal of SCA-2 to the supplementary affidavit, we find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and hence we deem it appropriate that the State Government may re-consider the matter of the petitioner, if the petitioner moves afresh application/representation, in accordance with law, after considering the Government Order dated 01.08.2018.

9. We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to move a fresh application/representation before the authority concerned with regard to his pre-mature release within a period of three weeks from today. If the petitioner moves such an application/representation, we hope and trust that the authority concerned shall make an earnest endeavour to consider the same and pass appropriate order on it, in accordance with law, after considering the Government Order dated 01.08.2018, expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

10. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

11. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.