1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 333 of 2026 1 - Rajauram Ratre S/o Chintaram Aged About 43 Years R/o- Village- Chherkadih, P.S.- Palari, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Secretary Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director General Of Jail And Correctional Services Headquarters, Jail And Correctional Services, Sector- 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 492002 4 - Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) .. Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 25 /06/2026 1 The matter has been listed on default. Upon due consideration, the default pointed out by the Registry is waived. 2 Heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, appearing on behalf of Mr. Varun Shamra, ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.06.27 12:07:28 +0530 2 learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State. 3 The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call for the records of the case from the Respondents. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 22/03/2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.1/State Government. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to release Petitioner granting remission under the provisions of section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (Section 432 Of Cr.P.C.). 10.4 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken into custody on 07.11.2010 in connection with the offence and was subsequently convicted by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, then District Raipur (now District Balodabazar-Bhatapara), vide judgment dated 28.06.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 28/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 506 Part-II, 450, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine. He further submits that Criminal Appeal No. 696/2013 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2019 and thereafter Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 41389/2019 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2022. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has remained in custody since 3 07.11.2010 and, after taking into account the remission earned by him, has completed the requisite period of sentence for consideration of premature release/remission under the applicable Prison Rules. During incarceration, the conduct of the petitioner has been found to be good and satisfactory and, accordingly, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, vide communication dated 30.07.2025, forwarded his case for remission and sought opinion from the Court of conviction. It is further submitted that the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, vide order dated 25.08.2025, has given a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of remission. Despite the aforesaid favourable recommendations and the amendment brought in the Prison Rules vide notification dated 23.04.2025 removing the earlier bar on remission, the State Government, by the impugned order dated 22.03.2026, rejected the petitioner's claim for remission solely on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the reformative object underlying the provisions relating to remission, particularly when the petitioner has demonstrated good conduct and reformation during his long incarceration. It is lastly submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.(Cr.) No. 178/2026), decided on 06.04.2026, wherein in similar circumstances this Court directed grant of remission, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. 5 Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has been convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 506 Part-II, 450, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to a valid judgment of conviction passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar. It is 4 further submitted that the conviction of the petitioner has attained finality, as Criminal Appeal No. 696/2013 preferred before this Court was dismissed on 07.02.2019 and the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 41389/2019 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 15.07.2022. Learned State counsel would contend that the offences committed by the petitioner are grave in nature and have serious repercussions on society. It is further submitted that the State Government, while considering the petitioner's case for remission, took into account the recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, which did not find the petitioner suitable for grant of remission, and accordingly the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.03.2026. It is argued that the recommendation of the Punishment Review Board constitutes relevant material for consideration by the State Government while exercising its powers under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), and therefore no illegality can be attributed to the impugned order. It is thus submitted that considering the nature of the offence and the adverse recommendation of the competent Board, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6 It is submitted that grant of remission is neither automatic nor a matter of right merely upon completion of the requisite period of incarceration, but is subject to consideration by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and policy guidelines. Learned State counsel contends that the petitioner stands convicted for serious offences including murder and attempt to murder and, therefore, the nature and gravity of the offence are relevant considerations while examining his claim for premature release. It is further submitted that the State Government, after considering 5 the material placed before it, including the recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, has passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for remission and the same does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Learned State counsel, however, fairly submits that this Court, in Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.(Cr.) No. 178/2026), decided on 06.04.2026, has granted relief in similar circumstances; nevertheless, according to him, each case is required to be considered on its own facts and the said decision would not automatically entitle the present petitioner to claim remission as a matter of right. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 8 The petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 506 Part-II, 450, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and has remained in custody since 07.11.2010. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed the requisite period of incarceration, including earned remission, making him eligible for consideration of premature release/remission under the applicable Prison Rules. The material available on record further reveals that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, vide communication dated 30.07.2025, forwarded the petitioner's case for remission after recording that his conduct in jail was good and satisfactory, and sought the opinion of the Court of conviction. It is also evident that the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, by order dated 25.08.2025, furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of remission. Thus, the record demonstrates that both the jail 6 authorities as well as the Court of conviction found the petitioner suitable for consideration of remission on account of his satisfactory conduct and reformation during the period of incarceration. 9 The rejection of the petitioner's claim for remission by the State Government vide impugned order dated 22.03.2026 is primarily founded upon the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board. However, the impugned order does not indicate any objective material demonstrating that the petitioner, if released, would pose a threat to society or is otherwise unsuitable for premature release. On the contrary, the record reveals that the petitioner has maintained good conduct during incarceration and has received favourable recommendations from both the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, and the Court of conviction. The rejection appears to have been made without adequately considering these relevant factors and the amendment brought about by notification dated 23.04.2025 removing the earlier bar on remission. This Court also takes note of the decision rendered in Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.(Cr.) No. 178/2026), decided on 06.04.2026, wherein relief was granted in similar circumstances. While the said decision does not confer an automatic right upon the present petitioner, it nonetheless reinforces the requirement that the petitioner's claim for remission be considered on the basis of objective criteria, fairness and the reformative principles underlying the remission policy. 10 At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the provisions governing remission and premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, as amended by Notification dated 23.04.2025. The amended Rules contemplate consideration of premature release of life convicts who have 7 undergone the prescribed period of sentence, subject to an assessment of their conduct, reformation and overall suitability for reintegration into society. The said provisions embody the reformative philosophy of criminal jurisprudence and require that the case of an eligible convict be considered in a fair, objective and non-arbitrary manner. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has completed the requisite period of incarceration, including the remission earned by him, and that his conduct during imprisonment has been found to be satisfactory. The record further reveals that both the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, and the Court of conviction have recommended the petitioner's case for remission. In such circumstances, the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, unsupported by any cogent material indicating that the petitioner is unfit for release or poses a threat to society, cannot be permitted to defeat the statutory scheme and the reformative object underlying the remission policy. 11 It is well settled that though the power of remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is discretionary in nature, such discretion is required to be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner, keeping in view the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, has held that while considering premature release of a convict, the competent authority is required to examine, inter alia, whether the offence is an individual act without affecting society at large, the likelihood of the convict committing offences in future, and the probability of his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, it has been held that 8 orders relating to remission are amenable to judicial review where they are found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide or based on irrelevant considerations. Further, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the benefit of a remission policy must be extended in a fair, consistent and non-discriminatory manner. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for remission, despite favourable recommendations of the jail authorities and the Court of conviction and in the absence of any cogent material indicating his unsuitability for release, does not appear to satisfy the requirement of objective and fair consideration envisaged under law. 12 The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is essentially reformative and not retributive. Long incarceration, coupled with demonstrable good conduct, favourable recommendations from the competent authorities and absence of any statutory disqualification, entitles a convict to fair, objective and non-arbitrary consideration under the applicable Prison Rules. In the present case, the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010 and has completed the requisite period of incarceration for consideration of remission. The record further reveals that the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, vide order dated 25.08.2025, has furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, has also recommended his case on account of his satisfactory conduct during incarceration. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that in Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(Cr.) No. 178/2026], decided on 06.04.2026, relief was granted in similar circumstances. Though parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the said decision reinforces the requirement of consistency and fairness in 9 decision-making. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for remission is founded solely upon the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board without any cogent, objective or tangible material indicating that the petitioner is unsuitable for release or poses a threat to society. On the contrary, the favourable recommendation of the Court of conviction and the recommendation of the jail authorities, which are relevant indicators of the petitioner's conduct, reformation and suitability for release, have not been accorded due weightage. Such an approach defeats the reformative object underlying the remission policy and renders the decision-making process arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in law. 13 In the totality of the circumstances, particularly considering that the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010 and has completed the requisite period of incarceration for consideration of remission, his satisfactory conduct during imprisonment, the favourable recommendation made by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, vide order dated 25.08.2025, as well as the recommendation of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, and further taking into account the amendment to the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules vide Notification dated 23.04.2025 removing the earlier bar on remission, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of remission in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim solely on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, without any cogent, objective or tangible material to justify such rejection, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is violative of the principles of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness 10 enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 14 Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order bearing No. LAW-4201/236(34)/2026/JAIL-3 dated 22.03.2026 passed by the respondent/State Government is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of remission to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable Chhattisgarh Prison Rules and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with the usual terms and conditions governing such release. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Judge Alok