1 2026:CGHC:25597-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 325 of 2026 Pardeshi Sahu S/o Shri Dalagan Sahu Presently Aged About 37 Years (About 21 Years At The Time Of Entry Into Jail) R/o Village Mannadol Near Bajrang Bali Mandir, Tifra Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Under Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh Jail Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services. Chhattisgarh Head Quarter Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23 . 06 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, 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 call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon,ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set- aside the order dated 22.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued/passed by the respondent no.2; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner remission under 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023/432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and to release the petitioner by granting remission of rest part of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Learned 5th Additional Session Judge Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 122/2010; and 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for premature release/remission of the remaining part of sentence is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the object and spirit of the provisions governing remission. It is submitted that the 3 petitioner has been in custody since 06.04.2010 and has undergone more than 16 years of actual imprisonment and more than 20 years of imprisonment including earned remission. Thus, the petitioner has fulfilled the statutory requirement for consideration of his case for premature release under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted an application for remission on 06.11.2024, pursuant to which the opinion of the learned Sessions Court was obtained. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide communication dated 24.12.2024, expressed no objection to the release of the petitioner after completion of sentence and directed consideration in accordance with the Jail Manual. Thereafter, the jail authorities prepared the necessary report under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 and forwarded the case for consideration. It is submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s case solely on the basis of an alleged negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board is unsustainable, as the competent authority is required to independently examine all relevant factors including the petitioner’s conduct during incarceration, period of custody undergone, possibility of reformation, and other mitigating circumstances. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order does not disclose proper application of mind and merely reproduces the adverse opinion of the State Sentence Review Board without assigning 4 independent reasons for rejection. Such mechanical rejection defeats the very purpose of remission provisions, which are intended to provide an opportunity for reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh & Others, (2007) 13 SCC 606, wherein it has been held that the power of remission is required to be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. Reliance is also placed upon Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down relevant considerations for premature release, including the possibility of the prisoner committing a similar offence, the potential for reformation and rehabilitation, and the socio-economic condition of the prisoner. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 is liable to be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release/remission afresh, in accordance with law and after taking into consideration all relevant factors. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel, opposing the writ petition, submits that the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejecting the application of the petitioner for premature release/remission has been passed by the competent authority after due consideration of the relevant material and in accordance with the provisions contained under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. It is submitted that the petitioner was convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 450, 397 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The nature and gravity of 5 the offence committed by the petitioner are relevant factors while considering an application for premature release, and the same cannot be overlooked merely on the ground that the petitioner has completed the required period of incarceration. Learned State counsel submits that the case of the petitioner was placed before the State Sentence Review Board, which, after examining the relevant facts and circumstances, including the nature of the crime, conduct of the petitioner and other relevant aspects, made an adverse recommendation against premature release. The competent authority, while exercising powers under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, has taken into consideration the said recommendation and has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. It is further submitted that premature release is not an absolute right of a prisoner. Completion of the requisite period of sentence only makes a prisoner eligible for consideration and does not create any vested right to seek release. The competent authority is required to balance the interest of the convict, the society and the victim while considering such applications. Learned State counsel further submits that the impugned order is a reasoned order passed after following the prescribed procedure and there is no violation of any statutory provision or fundamental right of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim interference merely because the decision taken by the competent authority is adverse to him. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh & Others, (2007) 13 SCC 606, wherein it has been held that remission is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the 6 competent authority after considering the relevant factors and applicable policy. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby his application for premature release/remission of the remaining part of sentence has been rejected. 7. The facts which emerge from the record are that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.04.2010 and has undergone more than 16 years of actual imprisonment and more than 20 years of imprisonment including earned remission. The petitioner’s case for premature release was considered under the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. The record further shows that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide communication dated 24.12.2024, expressed no objection to the release of the petitioner after completion of sentence, subject to compliance with the applicable rules. 8. The impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner is primarily based upon the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. However, upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the competent authority has not independently examined the relevant factors required to be considered while deciding an application for premature release, including the period of incarceration 7 undergone, conduct of the petitioner during imprisonment, possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, and other mitigating circumstances. 9. It is well settled that premature release/remission is not a matter of absolute right, but the authority empowered to consider such application is required to exercise its discretion fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. The decision-making authority cannot mechanically rely upon an adverse recommendation without applying its independent mind to the relevant aspects of the case. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595 has laid down the relevant considerations for premature release, including whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting society at large, whether there is any possibility of the prisoner committing a similar offence, and whether the prisoner has the potential to be reformed and rehabilitated. 11. Further, in State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh & Others, (2007) 13 SCC 606, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of remission is required to be exercised fairly and reasonably, keeping in view the relevant factors and the object of rehabilitation. 12. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of incarceration, has earned remission for more than four years, and has completed the period prescribed for consideration of premature release. The learned sentencing Court has also not raised any objection to his release. The rejection of the petitioner’s application solely on the basis of an adverse recommendation, without proper consideration of the aforesaid relevant factors, cannot be sustained. 8 13. This Court is conscious of the seriousness of the offence for which the petitioner was convicted; however, the object of remission is not only to consider the gravity of the offence but also to assess the subsequent conduct, reformation and possibility of rehabilitation of the prisoner. The incarceration of a convict cannot be continued mechanically without examining whether the purpose of punishment has been achieved. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 suffers from non- application of mind and is not sustainable in law. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for premature release/remission is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner forthwith by granting remission of the remaining part of sentence, subject to the condition that the petitioner is not required in any other criminal case and upon completion of necessary formalities as per law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra