2026:CGHC:22530-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 273 of 2026 Santosh Kumar Dhruv S/o Shri Savantram Aged About 24 Years (Current Age - 40 Years). R/o Jungle Para Nagri Thana - Nagri Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) At Present (Prisoner Number 7245/119) Central Jail Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter Prisons And Correctiona Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Dr Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Dy AG --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.05.2026 Heard Shri Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Dy AG for the State. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition for the following reliefs: Wpcr 273 of 2026 2 “1) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P1) passed by the respondent authorities and direct the respondent State to prematurely release the petitioner, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice 2) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioners together with cost of the petition” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari in Sessions Case No. 48/2009 vide judgment dated 29.01.2010 for offences punishable under section 363, 376(g) of the IPC, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were subsequently affirmed by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 124/2010 vide judgment dated 23.09.2015. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 passed by respondent -2 rejecting the petitioner's case for premature release is arbitrary, mechanical, and contrary to the settled principles governing remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 432 Cr.P.C.). The petitioner has undergone more than 16–17 years of actual imprisonment and more than 20 years including remission, thereby satisfying the statutory threshold for consideration of premature release. 4. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court in WPCR No.198/2025 vide its order dated 10.07.2025 specifically directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case in light of the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. However, while passing the impugned order, the respondents merely reiterated the gravity of the original offence and ignored the reformative principles Wpcr 273 of 2026 3 underlying remission jurisprudence. The authorities have thus failed to comply with the spirit and mandate of the earlier order passed by this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has maintained satisfactory conduct throughout incarceration. The Jail Superintendent’s report clearly records that the petitioner’s conduct was reformative and no criminal misconduct was reported during the entire jail period. The object of continued incarceration is not perpetual punishment but reformation and reintegration into society. Once the competent jail authorities themselves certify satisfactory conduct, denial of remission solely on the basis of the original offence amounts to punitive excess. 6. It is further argued that under Section 473(2) BNSS, the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the convicting Court carries substantial importance. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, after considering the entire record, specifically recommended remission in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.07.2024. The said recommendation observed that the petitioner had completed more than 19 years including remission and his conduct in jail was satisfactory and reformative. Despite such favourable judicial opinion, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim without assigning any cogent reasons for disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind as the authorities considered irrelevant factors such as possible public resentment and societal perception while completely ignoring the present conduct, reformative progress, and likelihood of reoffending. The authorities failed to assess whether the petitioner presently poses any threat to society. Wpcr 273 of 2026 4 8. It is also contended that the exercise of power under Section 473 BNSS must be fair, reasonable, and guided by constitutional principles under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The rejection order suffers from arbitrariness because similarly situated convicts have been granted remission upon satisfactory jail conduct and completion of the requisite sentence period. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 23.02.2026 in WPCR No.107/2026 wherein it was held that the power of remission must be exercised upon objective consideration of all relevant factors. 9. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 be quashed and the respondents be directed to release the petitioner prematurely in accordance with law. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was convicted for a grave and heinous offence involving kidnapping and gang rape of a minor girl aged about 15 years. Considering the serious nature of the offence and its impact upon society, the competent authorities rightly rejected the application for premature release. It is further submitted that although the petitioner has completed the requisite sentence period for consideration of remission, no convict acquires an indefeasible right to premature release merely because he has undergone long incarceration. The power under Section 473 BNSS is discretionary in nature and is required to be exercised after considering all relevant circumstances including public safety, societal impact, and reports received from local authorities. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the Sentence Review Board considered the reports of the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and Jail Authorities. The police authorities specifically reported that there remained Wpcr 273 of 2026 5 strong resentment against the petitioner in the locality and that his release may disturb public peace and order. The Board also considered the nature of the offence and the social repercussions of granting remission in such offences. 12. It is argued that the recommendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is only one of the factors to be considered and is not binding upon the Government. The ultimate satisfaction regarding remission lies with the State Government. Therefore, merely because the Sessions Judge recommended remission does not automatically entitle the petitioner to release. 13. The State further contends that the impugned order was passed after due consideration of all relevant materials placed before the competent authority and therefore no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted. The decision-making process cannot be substituted by judicial review unless the order is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, or contrary to law. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner was convicted on 29.01.2010 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner has undergone more than 16– 17 years of actual incarceration and more than 20 years including earned remission. It is also not disputed that the petitioner’s earlier writ petition being WPCR No.198/2025 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to reconsider his case in light of amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 16. The record further demonstrates that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, while exercising powers contemplated under Section 432 Cr.P.C. (now Section 473 BNSS), specifically recommended remission in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.07.2024. The said recommendation records that Wpcr 273 of 2026 6 the conduct of the petitioner in jail remained reformative and no adverse conduct was reported during incarceration. 17. The impugned order dated 02.02.2026 primarily relies upon the gravity of the offence and adverse police reports indicating possible public resentment in the locality. However, the order does not indicate any independent assessment regarding the present conduct of the petitioner, his reformative progress, or the likelihood of repetition of offence. The authorities also failed to assign cogent reasons for differing from the favourable recommendation made by the learned Sessions Judge. 18. The settled principle governing remission is that though the nature of offence is undoubtedly a relevant factor, the same cannot be the sole ground for perpetual denial of remission once the convict has undergone substantial incarceration and demonstrated reformation. The object of remission is to encourage rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The authorities are required to balance societal interest with constitutional values of fairness and reformative justice. 19. This Court also finds that the impugned order reflects consideration of generalized apprehensions rather than objective materials demonstrating any present threat posed by the petitioner. Such mechanical reliance upon police opinion, without proper evaluation of relevant factors, renders the decision-making process arbitrary. 20. Considering his long period of incarceration, satisfactory conduct, favorable opinions of the competent authorities and absence of any statutory embargo, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of premature release. The action of the respondent authorities in denying such benefit on an erroneous interpretation of the Rule is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution Wpcr 273 of 2026 7 of India, as explained in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner’s application for premature release/remission cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 02.02.2026 is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant remission/premature release to the petitioner in accordance with law and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.05.18 18:23:09 +0530