A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Divesh Chandra Samant termed it as a "disturbing state of affairs".

The Court further sought a personal affidavit from the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, disclosing the criteria and the basis on which such remission was granted.

The bench was essentially dealing with a criminal writ petition filed by Shailendra Singh.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Vashishtha Narayan Tripathi submitted that the principal offender (Jai Deo Singh) had been convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

However, the petitioner alleged that despite the gravity of the offence, he was granted remission after serving only 5 years, 10 months and 18 days of his sentence.

Taking note of the submission, the Bench remarked thus:

"Prima facie, this appears to be a rather disturbing state of affairs regarding the manner in which a person convicted of a grave offence and sentenced to imprisonment for life was granted remission after serving only five and a half years".

Seeking a reply from the top official of the Home Department, the Bench also directed the petitioner to implead the convict (Jai Deo Singh) as a co-respondent. It also ordered that he be issued notice.

The matter has been directed to be listed after four weeks.