1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 336 of 2026 1 - Kejauram Ratre S/o Chintaram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Chherkadih, P.S. Palari, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Secretary Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director General Of Jail And Correctional Services Hedquarters, Jail And Correctional Services, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002. 4 - Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Varun Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.06.27 11:58:04 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi , Judge Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge 25.06.2026 1. The present matter has been listed on default. Upon due consideration, the default pointed out by the Registry is waived. 2. Heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for following relief:- “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 implicated in a criminal case in the year 2010 and was taken into custody on 07.11.2010. He was subsequently convicted by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, then District Raipur (now 3 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 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine on each count. He further submits that Criminal Appeal No.696/2013 preferred against the judgment of conviction 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. He further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010 and has completed more than 19 years of sentence including remission as calculated under the applicable Prison Rules, thereby becoming entitled to consideration for remission. It is further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner throughout his incarceration has been found to be good and corrective, and considering his satisfactory jail conduct, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, vide communication dated 30.07.2025 sought opinion from the Court of conviction regarding grant of remission. Pursuant thereto, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, vide order dated 25.08.2025, furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of remission. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that despite the favourable recommendation of the convicting Court and the satisfactory conduct of the petitioner, the State Government vide impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejected the petitioner's claim for remission solely on the basis of the negative recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board. It is contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, particularly in 4 view of the amendment brought into force by Notification dated 23.04.2025 whereby the bar on consideration of remission under the Prison Rules has been removed. He further submits that this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.178/2026 (Manoj Sahu v. State and Others), decided on 06.04.2026, has already directed grant of remission consideration in similar circumstances and has reiterated that the philosophy underlying premature release is reformative and not retributive. It is thus argued that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and the impugned order deserves to be set aside with a direction to extend the benefit of remission to the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner stands 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 the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No.28/2011. It is submitted that the judgment of conviction has attained finality as Criminal Appeal No.696/2013 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 07.02.2019 and the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.41389/2019 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2022. Learned State counsel would further submit that the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted are grave and heinous in nature, involving offences against human life and public order, and therefore the petitioner's case requires strict scrutiny before extending the benefit of remission. It is contended that although the opinion of the Court of conviction was obtained and a favourable recommendation was furnished by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, 5 the matter was thereafter placed before the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, which, upon consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, did not recommend grant of remission to the petitioner. Based upon such recommendation and the material available on record, the State Government passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for remission. It is further submitted that the recommendation of the State Punishment Review Board constitutes a relevant consideration in the decision- making process and the State Government, after taking into account the nature of the offences, surrounding circumstances and the overall impact of the petitioner's release on society, has exercised its discretion in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 7. 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 is in custody since 07.11.2010. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone more than 15 years of actual imprisonment and has completed the requisite period of sentence including remission as contemplated under the applicable Prison Rules. The material placed on record further reveals that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, having found the conduct of the petitioner to be good and corrective, initiated the process for consideration of remission by seeking the opinion of the Court of conviction vide communication dated 30.07.2025. The learned First 6 Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, thereafter vide order dated 25.08.2025 furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of remission. Thus, both the jail authorities as well as the Court of conviction have found the petitioner fit for consideration of remission on the basis of his conduct and reformation during the period of incarceration. 8. The rejection of the petitioner's claim for remission by the State Government vide impugned order dated 22.03.2026 is founded upon the negative recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board. However, a perusal of the impugned order would reveal that despite the positive recommendation furnished by the Court of conviction and the satisfactory conduct reported by the jail authorities, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any specific or cogent reasons demonstrating as to why the petitioner was found unsuitable for grant of remission. The impugned decision appears to proceed merely on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Review Board without any independent consideration of the relevant factors such as the petitioner's long period of incarceration, his reformation, good conduct in jail and the favourable opinion of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar. This Court also takes note of the decision rendered in W.P.(Cr.) No.178/2026 (Manoj Sahu v. State and Others), wherein relief was granted in similar circumstances after taking into consideration the amendment brought by Notification dated 23.04.2025 and the reformative object underlying remission. At the same time, it is trite that every claim for remission is required to be examined on its own facts and the benefit granted in another case would not automatically confer 7 an enforceable right upon the petitioner. Nevertheless, the decision- making process must satisfy the test of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness and must be founded on objective considerations rather than on vague or generalized grounds. 9. At this juncture, it would be apposite to notice the scheme governing remission under Section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (formerly Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) read with the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, as amended by Notification dated 23.04.2025. The amendment has removed the earlier embargo on consideration of remission in certain categories of cases and reinforces the reformative and rehabilitative object underlying the remission policy. The statutory framework contemplates consideration of premature release of eligible life convicts on the basis of relevant factors including the period of incarceration undergone, conduct in prison, prospects of reformation and recommendations of the competent authorities. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010 and has completed the requisite period of sentence, including remission, for consideration of premature release under the applicable Rules. The material available on record further demonstrates that the conduct of the petitioner has been found to be satisfactory by the jail authorities and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, has also furnished a favourable recommendation dated 25.08.2025. In such circumstances, while the recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board is undoubtedly a relevant factor, the same cannot be considered in isolation so as to defeat the statutory scheme and the reformative 8 purpose underlying the remission policy, particularly when the other competent authorities have assessed the petitioner to be fit for consideration of remission. 10. It is well settled that although the power to grant remission under Section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (formerly Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is discretionary in nature, such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and is required to be guided by relevant considerations and the constitutional mandate of fairness under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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 of a convict, the competent authority is required to assess, inter alia, whether the offence is an individual act without affecting society at large, the possibility of recurrence of criminal conduct, the potentiality of the convict to commit crime in future, and whether any fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the convict incarcerated for a longer period. Likewise, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 161, it has been held that orders pertaining to remission and clemency are amenable to judicial review where the decision is found to be arbitrary, mala fide, based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations, or suffers from non-application of mind. Further, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the claim for remission must be considered in accordance with the policy applicable to the convict and that such policy ought to be applied in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the 9 considered view that the petitioner's claim for remission was required to be examined objectively by taking into account his long period of incarceration, satisfactory jail conduct, favourable recommendation of the Court of conviction and the applicable Prison Rules as amended, rather than being rejected solely on the basis of a negative recommendation of the State Punishment Review Board. 11. The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is fundamentally reformative rather than retributive. The object of the criminal justice system is not merely to punish an offender but also to facilitate his reformation and eventual reintegration into society as a law-abiding citizen. Long incarceration, coupled with satisfactory conduct in prison, demonstrable signs of reformation and favourable recommendations from the competent authorities, constitutes a significant factor while considering a claim for remission. In the present case, the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010 and has completed the requisite period of sentence prescribed under the applicable Prison Rules. The material on record further reveals that the conduct of the petitioner has been found to be good and corrective by the jail authorities and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, has also furnished a positive recommendation dated 25.08.2025 in support of his claim for remission. Moreover, the amendment brought about by Notification dated 23.04.2025 has removed the earlier bar on consideration of remission, thereby making the petitioner eligible for consideration under the prevailing legal framework. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that in W.P.(Cr.) No.178/2026 (Manoj Sahu v. State and Others), decided on 06.04.2026, this Court has emphasized the reformative object 10 underlying remission and has granted relief in substantially similar circumstances. Though the benefit extended in another case cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the said decision nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance reinforcing the requirement of consistency, fairness and non-arbitrariness in the exercise of statutory discretion by the State authorities. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for remission cannot be sustained in law. The rejection is founded solely upon the negative recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, without disclosing any cogent reasons or objective material justifying the denial of remission. The record reveals that the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010, has completed the requisite period of incarceration for consideration of remission under the applicable Rules, and has maintained satisfactory conduct during his incarceration. Further, both the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar have furnished favourable recommendations supporting the petitioner's claim for remission. However, these relevant and material considerations do not appear to have been accorded due weight while passing the impugned order. In the absence of any tangible material demonstrating that the petitioner's release would be detrimental to society or that he remains unfit for reintegration into the mainstream, the rejection of his claim merely on the basis of an adverse recommendation defeats the reformative object underlying the remission policy and renders the decision-making process arbitrary, 11 unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles governing exercise of power under Section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023. 13. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010, has completed the requisite period of incarceration prescribed under the applicable Prison Rules, has maintained satisfactory conduct during his incarceration, and has earned favourable recommendations from both the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner's claim for remission deserved fair and objective consideration in accordance with law. The Court also takes note of the fact that the amendment brought into force by Notification dated 23.04.2025 has removed the earlier embargo on consideration of remission, thereby rendering the petitioner eligible for consideration under the prevailing legal framework. In such circumstances, the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner's claim solely on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, without assigning cogent reasons or disclosing any objective material to outweigh the favourable factors available on record, cannot be sustained in law. Such a decision is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the reformative philosophy underlying the remission policy, besides offending the constitutional mandate of fairness and non-arbitrariness embodied in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 12 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 respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of remission to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 and the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, as amended by Notification dated 23.04.2025, and to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with such terms and conditions as may be prescribed under the relevant Rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Judge sagrika