Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010037772026 2026:GAU-AS:12514 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1115/2026 SARGAM KUMAR RABHA SON OF LATE DEBO KUMAR RABHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PARAKHOWA, P.O.- PARAKHOWA, DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PRESENTLY LODGED AT SPECIAL JAIL, NAGAON - 782441. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110011. 2:THE DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF DEFENCE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MLITARY AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF DEFENCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SENA BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110011. 3:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF DEFENCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SENA BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110011. 4:THE COMMANDING OFFICER 527 SENA SEVA CORPS SANGATHAN 527 ASC BN. KALIMPONG Page No.# 2/11 WEST BENGAL-905527 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU ASSAM 782486 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU ASSAM - 782460. 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL NAGAON HAIBARGAON FAUZDARIPATTY NAGAON ASSAM- 782001 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A Atreya Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. B Chakravarty CGC Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 25.08.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced Page No.# 3/11 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. A Atreya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B Chakravarty, the learned CGC who appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. H Sarma, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 and 7. 2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 whereby the Petitioner’s remission application for pre-mature release was rejected. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that: on account of commission of murder of 3(three) defence personnel and inflicting grievous injuries to 2(two) defence personnel and also for trying to commit suicide, the Summary General Court Martial found the Petitioner guilty and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to be dismissed from service. However, on the advice of the Deputy Judge, Advocate General of Northern Command to the General Officer Commanding 27 Mountain Division, the case being rarest of rare case, the Summary Court re-assembled on 07.07.2007 for revision of the sentence. The earlier sentence was revoked and the Petitioner was awarded death sentence, subject to confirmation by the Central Government. However, the Central Government, after due consideration, commuted the sentence from ‘to suffer death by being hanged by the neck until he be dead’, ‘to be dismissed from service’, and ‘to suffer imprisonment for life’. Page No.# 4/11 4. The Petitioner, in the meantime, had already undergone actual imprisonment of 15 years, 04 months, 13 days (as on 28.10.2024), and had also undergone a total sentence of 20 years, 01 month, 09 days, including remissions (as on 28.10.2024). The Petitioner has applied for premature release. Vide the impugned order dated 28.10.2024, the application for premature release was rejected, taking into account the heinousness of the crime committed by the Petitioner. It is under such circumstances, the present petition has been filed. 5. Upon filing of the present writ petition, a notice was issued by this Court on 27.02.2026. 6. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had filed an affidavit-in- opposition, thereby supporting the impugned order dated 28.10.2024. In the said affidavit-in- opposition, it is mentioned that the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 specifically takes into account the period of incarceration undergone by the Petitioner, the remission earned by him, the nature and gravity of the offense committed, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense, the fact that the Petitioner was initially awarded the sentence of death, subsequent commutation granted by the Central Government, the interest of the victims, the larger societal interest in preserving deterrence, the Rule of Law, and the necessity of maintaining discipline within the Armed Forces. 7. In the backdrop of the above, the question arises as to whether the factors which were taken into consideration in passing the impugned order dated 28.10.2024, which led to the rejection of the Petitioner's application seeking Page No.# 5/11 early release calls for interference. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials on record. 9. From a perusal of the contents of the writ petition, it is apparent that on 05.06.2022, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagaon had submitted a report to the Commanding Officer as regards the conduct and character of the Petitioner, and it was mentioned that during the period of his imprisonment, the conduct of the Petitioner was found to be satisfactory. It was also mentioned that the Petitioner was allowed to avail 2(two) times leave, and each time, he surrendered in due date, without any adverse record against him. The Petitioner's behavior and attitude towards the fellow inmates was found to be satisfactory. Further to that, his duties towards the welfare activities are recommendable, and for this special excellence, he was awarded with Special Remission from the Superintendent of Jail and Inspector General of Prisons, Assam. 10. The Psychiatrist had given a report on 25.05.2022 that there was no complaint against the Petitioner. The Petitioner actively participated in various educational and cultural activities of the Central Jail, and further to that, upon clinical and mental status examination being carried out, the Petitioner was found both physically and mentally fit for day-to-day activities. 11. The Commanding Officer had also submitted a report on 03.11.2022 on the character and conduct of the Petitioner. It was mentioned in the said report Page No.# 6/11 that taking into account the Petitioner's old aged mother, the recommendation of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Nagaon, can be processed for early release of the Petitioner. 12. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court takes note of the impugned order dated 28.10.2024, it is seen that the Authority had laid emphasis on the heinousness of the crime and further emphasize that any leniency shown to the Petitioner by remitting the unexpired portion of the life imprisonment, would send a wrong signal to the environment, and the same would be detrimental to the cause of maintenance of discipline in the Army. 13. In the backdrop of the above, this Court now finds it relevant to take note of the settled proposition of law as to how applications seeking premature release are required to be considered. In the case of Laxman Naskar, (Life Convict) Vs. the State of West Bengal and another, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 626, the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines to be taken into consideration whether a convict can be released from custody prematurely. In terms of the said guidelines, the relevant criteria were: (i). Whether the offense is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large. (ii). Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime. (iii). Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime. (iv). Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict anymore. (v). Socio-economic condition of the convict's family. 14. The Supreme Court, in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra), which was Page No.# 7/11 decided on 01.09.2000, further observed at paragraph No. 8 as to how the guidelines which have been laid down in the earlier judgment in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra), are required to be analyzed, applied. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “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.” 15. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajo alias Rajwa alias Rajendra Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, wherein the Supreme Court, upon taking into consideration that the State Government in the said case did not properly decide the issue pertaining to premature release of the convict, directed the Remission Board to reconsider by Page No.# 8/11 taking into consideration the factors laid down in Laxman Naskar (supra). Paragraph 30 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “30. In light of these findings and the precedents discussed above, it would be appropriate if the Remission Board reconsidered the petitioner's application for remission afresh, considering the reports of the police and other authorities, the post-prison record of the petitioner, the remissions earned (including that which is earned for good conduct), his age, health condition, family circumstances, and his potential for social engagement, in a positive manner. The concerned presiding judge is hereby directed to provide an opinion on the petitioner's application for premature release, after examining the judicial record, and provide adequate reasoning, taking into account the factors laid down in Laxman Naskar (supra), within one month from the date of this judgment. With the benefit of this report, the Remission Board may reconsider the application - without entirely or solely relying on it, but treating it as valuable (maybe weighty) advice that is based on the judicial record. Given the long period of incarceration already suffered by the writ petitioner and his age, the Remission Board should endeavour to consider the application at the earliest and render its decision, preferably within three months from the date of this judgment. A copy of this judgment shall be marked by the Registry of this Court, to the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, who is the chairperson of the Remission Board, as well as the concerned Presiding Judge, through the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Patna High Court.” 16. In a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in 2026 Page No.# 9/11 SCC Online SC 865, the Supreme Court categorically observed that the heinousness of a crime cannot be the sole factor to decide an application seeking premature release. Other necessary factors are also required to be taken note of. The Supreme Court emphasized that there has to be a holistic assessment of the prisoner, after balancing the societal interest with the prisoner's right to be considered for release on a fair and reasonable criteria. Paragraph Nos. 7 and 7.1, being relevant are reproduced hereinunder: “7. Reverting to the present case, the faint ground invoked by the respondent-Union of India in support of rejection of the petitioner's plea for premature release is that the crime committed by the petitioner was a heinous one. We wish to make it clear that in a constitutional polity governed by the rule of law, the denial of remission cannot rest solely on the ground of heinousness of the crime. As we have already stated above, remission is not an extension of the sentencing process, but a distinct executive function concerned with the present and future, namely, the prisoner's conduct, evidence of reformation, and prospects of reintegration into society. To predicate its denial only on the heinous nature of the offence is to collapse this distinction and to reconvert remission into a retrospective reaffirmation of guilt, which the criminal justice system has already adjudicated upon. The gravity and heinousness of the offence stand exhausted at the stage of sentencing and the judicial determination of punishment necessarily incorporates these considerations. A criminal justice system that refuses to look beyond the gravity of the offence to the offender's transformation will betray its reformative ideal particularly at the remission stage. Justice does not permit permanent incarceration of an individual in the shadow of their worst act.” Page No.# 10/11 “7.1. The nature of the offence cannot, therefore, be the sole ground for denying remission. Emotive retribution is a course, incompatible with constitutional values. The decision on remission must emerge from a holistic assessment of the prisoner and after balancing societal interests with the prisoner's right to be considered for release on fair and reasonable criteria.” 17. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, and applying the same to the facts of the instant case and more particularly the impugned order dated 28.10.2024, it would show that the sole basis on which the competent authority had passed the impugned order, thereby rejecting the Petitioner's application was taking into account the heinousness of the crime and without considering the various factors as to whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime; whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing the crime; whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict anymore; as well as the societal economic condition of the convict's family. 18. This Court also finds it very pertinent to observe that in the case of Rohit Chaturvedi (supra), the Supreme Court made it clear that our criminal justice system is based upon reformation, and, therefore, a criminal justice system that refuses to look beyond the gravity of the offense to the offender's transformation would betray its reformative ideal, particularly at the remission stage. The Supreme Court categorically observed that justice does not permit permanent incarceration of an individual in the shadow of the worst act. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this court that the Page No.# 11/11 impugned order dated 28.10.2024 is required to be reconsidered by the competent authority, keeping in mind the propositions of law laid down by the Supreme Court as referred to hereinabove. 19. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i). The impugned order dated 28.10.2024 is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. (ii). The Respondent Nos.1, 2, and 3 are directed to reconsider the Petitioner's application for premature release by getting an up-to-date status as regards the Petitioner's character and conduct, and further to that, by taking into account the parameters so laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Laxman Naskar (supra). The said exercise be carried out within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iii). Taking into account that the Petitioner is languishing in the Central Jail, Nagaon, this Court directs the Registry of this Court, to provide a true copy of this order to Mr. B. Chakravarty, the learned CGC so that the same may be duly communicated to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. JUDGE Comparing Assistant