1 2026:CGHC:24850-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 319 of 2026 Farida @ Farid Ahmad S/o Siddiq Ahmad Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Macha, P.S. Mohda, District- Hamirpur (U.P.) Present R/o Rajatalab Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, Presently Lodged In Raipur Central Jail Raipur (C.G.) Since In Jail Through His Younger Brother Jahir Ahmad S/o Siddiq Ahmad Aged About 46 Years R/o 17/451, Civil Lines In Front Of Nalaa, On The South Side, Raipur District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General (Prisons and Rehabilitation Services) Jail Department, Jail Headquarters, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent, Raipur Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 . 06 .202 6 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 22.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities and direct the respondent State to prematurely release the petitioner, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide judgment dated 15.09.2016 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 44/2006. The conviction was affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in CRA No.1444/2017 vide judgment dated 26.07.2018. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8875/2019. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, along with nine other co-accused persons, namely, Madari @ Abrar Ahmad, Bachoo @ Israil, Bafati @ anwar, Noora @ Nooruddin, Sunil Bhalkar, Rayeesuddin @ Bachcha Pradhan, Nasim @ Nasimuddin, Sharifuddin, Shameem @ Shameemuddin was tried in Sessions Case No. 44/2026, however, were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 08.03.2007, 20.09.2011, 13.03.2013 and 15.09.2016 since there were 3 four different trials. The petitioner has remained in custody since 14.02.2011 and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Raipur. It is submitted that as on 13.05.2026, the petitioner had undergone 17 years, 11 months and 22 days of sentence including remission. During the entire period of incarceration, the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory. 5. Learned counsel further contended that upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, an opinion was sought from the learned Presiding Judge. The learned Presiding Judge, vide communication dated 19.09.2025, opined that the petitioner can be granted the benefit of remission. She further submitted that the petitioner's application in Form-A under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968 was forwarded by the jail authorities for consideration by the competent authorities. The jail authorities found the conduct of the petitioner to be satisfactory. It is also submitted that the petitioner was released on parole on fourteen occasions and, on every such occasion, he complied with the conditions imposed and surrendered before the authorities within time. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's application for premature release was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 22.03.2026 only on the ground that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence. She further contended that under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, the State Sentence Review Board is required to undertake an enquiry 4 on the parameters prescribed under sub-rule (4) and consider all relevant factors under sub-rule (7), including the opinion of the Court, the report of the Collector, and the jail report regarding the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner. It is further submitted that although the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation of the Board, any order rejecting remission must contain reasonable and logical reasons. 7. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, wherein it has been held that opinions of local residents and witnesses cannot by themselves determine whether a convict would be a danger to society upon release and that relevant considerations such as reformation of the prisoner and reports of jail authorities must be duly examined. She further stated that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature. Apart from referring to the gravity of the offence and alleged criminal antecedents, the authorities have failed to consider the relevant factors, namely the long period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, his satisfactory jail conduct, repeated grant of parole without any misuse, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, and his entitlement to consideration under the applicable rules. The impugned order does not disclose any proper application of mind and is bereft of cogent reasons. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities have taken into account irrelevant considerations while ignoring material and relevant circumstances. The powers under Section 432 of the Code of 5 Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are required to be exercised upon due consideration of all relevant factors, and the recording of proper subjective satisfaction is a sine qua non for the exercise of such powers. She also stated that the since the petitioner is presently in judicial custody, he has duly authorized his son to institute and prosecute the present petition on his behalf. 9. Lastly, learned counsel submits that 5 co-accused persons, namely, Madari @ Abrar Ahmad, Bachoo @ Israil, Bafati @ anwar, Noora @ Nooruddin and Shameem @ Shameemuddin, who were convicted in the same case and under similar circumstances, have already been granted the benefit of remission by the State after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner, therefore, seeks parity and submits that the rejection of his claim for premature release is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner stands convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is submitted that premature release or remission is not a vested right and mere completion of the qualifying period of sentence does not automatically entitle a convict to release. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner's case was duly considered by the State Sentence Review Board and thereafter by the State Government, which passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 after taking into consideration all relevant factors. It is further submitted 6 that the gravity and nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, as well as its impact on society, constitute valid considerations for denial of premature release. The reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police were also taken into account by the competent authority. It is argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any procedural irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 12. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide judgment dated 15.09.2016 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 44/2006. The conviction was affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in CRA No.1444/2017 vide judgment dated 26.07.2018. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8875/2019. 13. The record further reveals that the petitioner has remained in custody since 14.02.2011 and, as on 13.05.2026, has undergone more than 17 years, 11 months and 22 days of sentence including remission. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has completed more than 14 years of actual imprisonment. The custody certificate and jail records 7 further indicate that the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory throughout his incarceration. 14. It is also borne out from the record that upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, an opinion was sought from the learned Presiding Judge. The learned Presiding Judge, vide communication dated 19.09.2025 has given an opinion that the petitioner can be granted remission of sentence. It is further evident that the petitioner was released on parole on fourteen occasions and there is no allegation of misuse of liberty or violation of any parole condition. On each occasion, the petitioner surrendered before the authorities within the prescribed time. 15. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for premature release by order dated 22.03.2026 is sustainable in law. 16. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The Rule contemplates consideration of the case of an eligible life convict by the State Sentence Review Board after examining various factors including the prisoner's conduct and behaviour in jail, the opinion of the sentencing Court, the report of the Collector and Superintendent of Police and other relevant circumstances having bearing on his release. The Rule further provides that while the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation of the Board, any order of rejection must disclose reasonable and logical reasons. 8 17. The law relating to premature release and remission is no longer res integra. In Laxman Naskar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering premature release, the competent authority is required to examine factors such as the possibility of recurrence of crime, the potential of the prisoner for reformation and rehabilitation, and whether his continued incarceration serves any useful purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that opinions of local residents and witnesses cannot by themselves constitute determinative factors and that due importance must be attached to the reports regarding the prisoner's conduct and reformation. 18. In Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that orders relating to remission are subject to judicial review and may be interfered with where the decision-making process is arbitrary, mala fide or based upon irrelevant considerations. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, it was emphasized that remission policies must be implemented in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner. 19. Upon careful scrutiny of the impugned order dated 22.03.2026, this Court finds that the petitioner's claim has been rejected mainly on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and on the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. The order also takes note of the opinion of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police regarding threat perception. However, the impugned order does not reflect any meaningful consideration of several relevant circumstances, namely, the petitioner's long period of incarceration, his 9 satisfactory jail conduct, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the fact that he was released on parole on fourteen occasions without any adverse incident and his overall reformation during imprisonment. 20. The gravity of the offence undoubtedly constitutes a relevant factor while considering premature release. Nevertheless, once a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration under the applicable Rules, the competent authority is required to undertake a holistic assessment of all relevant factors. The impugned order does not disclose why the favourable materials available on record were found insufficient or how the adverse recommendations outweighed the positive indicators of reform and rehabilitation. 21. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that 5 co-accused persons, namely, Madari @ Abrar Ahmad, Bachoo @ Israil, Bafati @ anwar, Noora @ Nooruddin and Shameem @ Shameemuddin, who were convicted in the same case and under similar circumstances, have already been granted the benefit of remission by the State after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonmen. Though the principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically, it nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance which ought to have been considered by the authorities while evaluating the petitioner's claim. 22. The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. Long incarceration coupled with satisfactory conduct and demonstrated 10 reform are significant considerations which cannot be ignored. The object of the Rules is to ensure that a prisoner who has undergone substantial incarceration and has exhibited signs of reformation receives fair and objective consideration for reintegration into society. 23. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned decision as contemplated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The order fails to demonstrate due consideration of relevant factors and therefore cannot be sustained in law. 24. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release/remission is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if now required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual terms and conditions a may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra