1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 335 of 2026 1 - Tijauram Ratre S/o Chintaram Aged About 63 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 Headquarters, Jail And Correctional Services, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, 492002. 4 - Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... 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. N. K. Jaiswal, 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. N. K. Jaiswal, 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 herein has been convicted vide judgment dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, then District Raipur (now District Balodabazar-Bhatapara) 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 is undergoing life imprisonment along with fine. He further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010 and the Criminal Appeal being Cr.A. No. 696/2013 preferred against the judgment of conviction has also been dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 07.02.2019. Thereafter, the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 41389/2019 filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2022. Learned counsel further 3 submits that the petitioner has undergone more than 15 years of actual incarceration and has completed the requisite period of sentence including remission, thereby becoming eligible for consideration of premature release/remission under the applicable Prison Rules. During the long period of incarceration, the petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail, has shown satisfactory reformation and there has been no adverse report regarding his behaviour. He further submits that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, vide communication dated 30.07.2025, forwarded the case of the petitioner for grant of remission and sought opinion from the Court of conviction. It is submitted that the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, by order dated 25.08.2025, has given a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of remission and the Jail Authorities have also recommended his case. It is further submitted that despite the favourable recommendations of the Court of conviction and the Jail Authorities, the State Government has rejected the petitioner's claim for remission vide impugned order bearing No. LAW-4201/236(34)/2026/JAIL-3 dated 22.03.2026 solely on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board. According to learned counsel, the authorities have failed to take into consideration the petitioner's long incarceration, good conduct, reformation and the positive recommendations made by the competent authorities, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). It is also submitted that by virtue of the amendment in the Prison Rules vide Notification dated 23.04.2025, the earlier bar relating to remission stands removed and, therefore, the petitioner's case was liable to be considered in accordance with the amended Rules. It is lastly submitted 4 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 an identical matter and, therefore, the present petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit. 5 Per contra, learned State counsel submitted 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 the judgment dated 28.06.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 28/2011, which has attained finality upon dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 696/2013 by this Court on 07.02.2019 and dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2022. It is contended that having regard to the gravity and nature of the offences committed by the petitioner, the State Government was justified in rejecting his claim for remission on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board. Learned State counsel would submit that remission cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely on the ground of completion of the requisite period of incarceration and that the competent authority is required to consider various relevant factors, including the nature of the offence, its impact on society and the suitability of the convict for premature release. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 has been passed after due consideration of the relevant material available on record and does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 6 It is submitted that grant of remission is neither a matter of right nor an automatic consequence of completion of a particular period of incarceration, but is subject to consideration by the competent authority on the basis of 5 relevant factors, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the impact of the crime on society and the overall suitability of the convict for premature release. Learned State counsel would contend 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, therefore, the State Government was justified in taking into consideration the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board while rejecting his claim for remission. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 has been passed after due consideration of the material available on record and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court. While fairly conceding that this Court in Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(Cr.) No. 178/2026] granted relief in favour of the petitioner therein vide order dated 06.04.2026, learned State counsel submits that the said order was rendered in the facts and circumstances of that particular case and would not automatically entitle the present petitioner to claim similar relief 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 vide judgment dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No. 28/2011 and is in custody since 07.11.2010. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone more than 15 years of actual incarceration and has completed the requisite period of sentence including remission for consideration of premature release under 6 the applicable Prison Rules. The material placed on record further reveals that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, vide communication dated 30.07.2025, recommended the case of the petitioner for remission and sought opinion from the Court of conviction, and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, by order dated 25.08.2025, has also given a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of remission, taking note of his satisfactory conduct and reformation during incarceration. 9 The claim of the petitioner for grant of remission has been rejected by the State Government vide impugned order dated 22.03.2026 primarily on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board. However, the impugned order does not indicate any objective material or specific adverse circumstance against the petitioner so as to outweigh the favourable recommendations made by the Court of conviction and the Jail Authorities. The rejection appears to have been founded on a general assessment without due consideration of the petitioner's long period of incarceration, satisfactory conduct in jail and the positive recommendation dated 25.08.2025 made by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar. This Court also takes note of its decision 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. Though the said decision has persuasive value and underscores the requirement of fairness and consistency in matters relating to remission, each case is required to be examined on its own facts and in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and Prison Rules. 10 At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the Notification dated 23.04.2025 issued by the State Government whereby the relevant provisions 7 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 governing consideration of remission and premature release were amended and the earlier bar on grant of remission was removed. The amended framework contemplates consideration of eligible life convicts who have undergone the prescribed period of sentence, subject to evaluation of their conduct, reformation and overall suitability for reintegration into society. The underlying object of the said provisions is reformative rather than retributive and requires that the claim of an eligible convict be considered fairly, objectively and on the basis of relevant material. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone the requisite period of incarceration for consideration of remission and has maintained satisfactory conduct during his confinement, as reflected from the recommendation made by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur. Further, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, has also furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, in the absence of any specific and tangible material demonstrating unsuitability of the petitioner for premature release, cannot by itself defeat the beneficial and reformative object underlying the remission policy. 11 It is well settled that though the power to grant remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is discretionary, such discretion is required to be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. 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 life convict, the competent authority is required to examine, inter alia, whether the offence is of such a nature as to affect society at large, the likelihood of the convict 8 committing similar offences in future, the possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation, and whether any useful purpose would be served by continuing his incarceration. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, it has been held that orders relating to remission and premature release are amenable to judicial review and can be interfered with if found to be arbitrary, mala fide, unreasonable 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, just and consistent manner and that an eligible convict has a right to have his case considered in accordance with the policy applicable to him. These principles require the authorities to undertake an objective assessment of all relevant factors and eschew arbitrary decision-making while dealing with claims for remission. 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 undergone the requisite period of incarceration for consideration of remission. The material available on record further reveals that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, recommended the case of the petitioner for remission and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, vide order dated 25.08.2025, also furnished a positive recommendation in his favour. 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 substantially similar 9 circumstances. Though parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the said decision reinforces the requirement of consistency, fairness and reasonableness in the decision-making process. 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 vide order dated 22.03.2026 is not supported by any specific, cogent or tangible material sufficient to outweigh the favourable recommendations made by the Court of conviction and the Jail Authorities. The adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board has been accorded overriding weight without adequate consideration of the petitioner's long incarceration, satisfactory conduct and demonstrated reformation. Such an approach defeats the reformative object underlying the remission policy and renders the decision-making process arbitrary 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 undergone the requisite period of incarceration for consideration of remission, his satisfactory conduct and reformation during incarceration, the favourable recommendation made by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, as well as the positive opinion furnished by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, and further taking note of the amendment brought about by Notification dated 23.04.2025 removing the earlier bar on remission, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner's case merits favourable consideration for grant of remission. 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 assigning any cogent reasons or referring to any objective material outweighing the favourable recommendations of the competent authorities, cannot be sustained in law. 10 Such action is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the reformative object underlying the remission policy and, therefore, offends the mandate of fairness embodied in 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 respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with the usual terms and conditions as may be applicable under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, as amended from time to time. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Judge Alok