1 2026:CGHC:21928-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 262 of 2026 Santosh Yadav S/o Shobharam Yadav Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village-Kodwagodan, Police Station- Kokdoor, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Under Secretary Jail Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Director General Prisons, The Jail And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter Sector- 19 Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Cg) 5 - Collector (District Magistrate) District-Durg (C.G.) 6 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Chitendra Singh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy A.G. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.15 10:50:14 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. Chitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents/State. 2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by respondent No.3/Under Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Jail Department, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking premature release/remission of remaining jail sentence under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 has been rejected on the basis of the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “10.1 It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 06/04/2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 (Under Secretary, C.G. State Jail Department) and may kindly direct the Respondent authorities to consider the application for grant 3 of remission of the remaining jail sentence of the Petitioner. 10.3 Further, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities for releasing the petitioner under the provision of Section 432 of Cr.P.C. (as amended Section 473 of B.N.S.S, 2023) or as per other existing provision of law. 10.4 That, Any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, with default stipulation, by judgment dated 29.10.2011 passed in Special Case No.01/2011 by the learned Special Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District Kabirdham (C.G.). Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.18/2012 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 16.09.2017 affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.27394/2019 preferred by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 06.12.2019. 5. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent No.4/Director General Prisons issued a communication dated 18.03.2024 for 4 placing the cases of eligible life convicts before the State Sentence Review Board for consideration of premature release. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted an application dated 05.06.2025 before respondent No.6/Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg seeking grant of remission/premature release. The said application was forwarded along with favourable recommendation under prescribed Proforma ‘A’ and also with no objection/recommendation of the learned trial Court dated 22.03.2025. However, respondent No.3, by the impugned order dated 06.04.2026, rejected the claim of the petitioner for premature release on the basis of negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and by taking recourse to Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which has been assailed in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh and Laxman Naskar v. Union of India. He would further submit that while considering an application for remission/premature release, the competent authority is required to consider the relevant parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the conduct of the prisoner, possibility of repetition of offence, socio-economic condition of the family and whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continued incarceration. He would submit that in the present case the learned trial Court had already furnished favourable opinion/no objection and the jail 5 authorities had also recommended the case of the petitioner, however, without assigning cogent reasons and merely on the basis of a negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, the application has been rejected mechanically. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any independent application of mind and, therefore, deserves to be quashed with a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submit that the petitioner stands convicted for a heinous offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and after due consideration of all relevant aspects, the State Sentence Review Board did not find the case of the petitioner fit for grant of premature release/remission. He would further submit that remission is not a matter of right and the competent authority is empowered to take a decision keeping in view the gravity and impact of the offence upon society. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration and, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. At this juncture, it would also be apposite to refer to Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which contemplates consideration of premature release/remission of life convicts who have undergone 6 the prescribed period of sentence, subject to evaluation of their conduct, possibility of reformation and suitability for reintegration into society. The underlying object of the said provision is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely punitive. In the present case, the petitioner has admittedly undergone substantial period of incarceration and his case was duly recommended by the Jail Superintendent under prescribed Proforma ‘A’. It is further evident that the learned trial Court had also furnished favourable opinion/no objection in favour of the petitioner. Apart from a bald reference to the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, no adverse material has been brought on record by the respondents demonstrating unsatisfactory jail conduct, likelihood of repetition of offence or any circumstance disentitling the petitioner from consideration for remission. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner’s claim in a mechanical manner runs contrary to the statutory scheme as well as the reformative principles governing grant of premature release/remission. 10. It is well settled that though remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary, such discretion is required to be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 626, has held that while considering premature release/remission, the competent authority is required to examine factors such as whether the offence affects society at large, the likelihood of recurrence of crime, whether the 7 convict has lost the propensity to commit offence, and whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continued incarceration. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that orders relating to remission are amenable to judicial review where the exercise of power is arbitrary, mala fide, based on extraneous considerations or suffers from non-application of mind. Further, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, it has been emphasized that the benefit of remission policy ought to be extended in a fair, consistent and non-discriminatory manner keeping in view the reformative object underlying the policy of premature release. In the present case, the impugned order does not reflect consideration of the aforesaid settled principles of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. The philosophy underlying premature release/remission is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. The object of the remission policy is to encourage reformation of prisoners and facilitate their reintegration into the mainstream of society after they have undergone substantial period of incarceration and exhibited satisfactory conduct. In the present case, the petitioner has already undergone the requisite period of sentence and the material available on record demonstrates that his conduct in jail has remained satisfactory, which is also evident from the favourable recommendation made by the Jail Authorities as well as the no objection furnished by the learned trial Court. Once the relevant statutory requirements stand satisfied and no adverse material 8 indicating likelihood of recurrence of offence or threat to society has been brought on record, denial of remission/premature release merely on the basis of a bald negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and runs contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the reformative principles governing criminal jurisprudence. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that rejection of the petitioner’s claim for remission/premature release is founded merely upon the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board without there being any cogent or substantive material adverse to the petitioner. The favourable opinion/no objection furnished by the learned trial Court as well as the recommendation made by the Jail Authorities reflecting satisfactory conduct and eligibility of the petitioner have not been accorded due consideration by the respondent authorities. The impugned order does not disclose any independent application of mind nor does it assign any intelligible reason for discarding the favourable material available on record. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 13. Considering the long period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, his satisfactory jail conduct, favourable recommendation made by the Jail Authorities, positive opinion/no objection furnished by the learned trial Court and absence of any 9 adverse material or statutory embargo disentitling him from consideration of remission/premature release, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of premature release under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The action of the respondent authorities in denying such benefit merely on the basis of a bald and mechanical recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, without assigning cogent reasons and without proper consideration of the relevant parameters governing remission, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3/Under Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Jail Department is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission/premature release to the petitioner under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. / corresponding provisions of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved