1 2026:CGHC:26819-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 347 of 2026 Rajkumar Mallah S/o Mitthu Mallah Aged About 52 Years R/o Camp No. 02, Nishad Sudhar Samiti, Near Tadi Shop, P.S. Chawani , District- Durg (C.G.) Presently Lodged In Durg Central Jail, Durg (C.G.) Since In Jail, Through His Wife Geeta Devi W/o Rajkumar Mallah Aged About 42 Years R/o Camp No. 02, Nishad Sudhar Samiti, Near Tadi Shop, P.S. Chawani, District- Durg (C.G.) Presently R/o 224, Santoshipara Ward No. 24, Khursipar Bhilai , District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 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 District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent, Durg Central Jail Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Collector, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Aditi Shinghvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.01 18:06:54 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01 .07 .2026 1. Heard Mr.Aditi Shinghvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 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 07.05.2026 (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 submits that the petitioner was tried and convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 463/1993 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, vide judgment dated 19.03.1999. It is alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused Shiv Kumar Mallah and Govind Manrakhan was involved in the incident resulting in the death of one Awadesh Jaiswal. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the conviction, preferred a criminal appeal before this Court, which came to be dismissed, and thereafter, the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. It is further submitted that 3 the petitioner is presently undergoing life imprisonment at Durg Central Jail and has already undergone more than 16 years of actual incarceration as on 18.06.2026, and more than 20 years including remission. 4. It is submitted that after completion of more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, the petitioner became eligible for consideration of premature release under the applicable prison policy and rules, and accordingly, he submitted an application before the competent prison authorities seeking the benefit of premature release. However, the said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent authorities vide impugned order dated 07.05.2026, solely on the ground of the gravity and heinous nature of the offence, without any further reasoning or meaningful consideration of the relevant statutory parameters. It is further submitted that under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, the State Sentence Review Board is mandated to conduct a detailed inquiry on multiple prescribed parameters, including but not limited to the opinion of the Collector and Superintendent of Police, jail conduct report, and other relevant materials. Sub-rule (7) further requires the Board to consider all relevant aspects, including judicial opinion and reports concerning the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner. It is also specifically provided that while the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation, any order of rejection must be supported by reasonable and cogent reasons. In the present case, the impugned order fails to demonstrate due application of mind to the mandatory statutory requirements. The 4 order is cryptic in nature and merely refers to the seriousness of the offence as the basis for rejection, without dealing with the petitioner’s conduct in jail, period of incarceration already undergone, or other relevant considerations prescribed under Rule 358. The impugned order is thus arbitrary, mechanical, and non-speaking in nature, and is liable to be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court. 5. It is submitted that the impugned order suffers from discrimination and arbitrariness inasmuch as a similarly situated co-accused, namely Shiv Kumar @ Shiva, who was also convicted in the same case, has already been granted the benefit of remission vide order dated 26.03.2025. Another co-accused, Govind Manrakhan, has unfortunately died during incarceration. Further, in a similarly placed case, benefit of remission has been extended to a similarly situated prisoner vide order dated 29.04.2026 passed in WPCR No. 233/2026. The differential treatment meted out to the petitioner, without any intelligible differentia, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone more than 20 years of imprisonment including remission and has demonstrated satisfactory conduct during incarceration. Despite this, the State authorities have mechanically rejected the application without assigning adequate reasons or considering the relevant statutory tests, such as the likelihood of reoffending, conduct in jail, and impact of release on society, as required under the Prison Rules, 1968. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, being passed in violation of the mandatory requirements 5 of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, and is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court, with appropriate directions for reconsideration of the petitioner’s case for premature release in accordance with law. 6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State submitted that the petitioner was duly tried and convicted for the serious offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 463/1993 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, vide judgment dated 19.03.1999, which has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for having committed a heinous offence resulting in the death of one Awadesh Jaiswal along with co-accused persons. It is further submitted that grant of premature release is not an absolute right of the convict but is subject to the applicable statutory rules and policy considerations. The same depends upon a comprehensive assessment of multiple factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, impact on society, conduct of the prisoner, and overall satisfaction of the competent authority under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 7. It is submitted that the competent authority has duly considered the petitioner’s case in accordance with the prescribed procedure and has passed a reasoned order dated 07.05.2026. The mere reference to the seriousness of the offence does not render the order arbitrary, as gravity of the offence is a relevant and determinative factor in cases of premature release, particularly in offences under Section 302 IPC. It is 6 also submitted that the petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused or other cases as a matter of right, since premature release depends on individual assessment of each convict’s case. Alleged release of a co- accused or benefit granted in another matter does not create an enforceable right in favour of the petitioner. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 9. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Section 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual / Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which contemplates consideration of premature release of life convicts who have undergone the prescribed period of sentence, subject to assessment of their conduct, reformation, and overall suitability for reintegration into society. The said provision embodies the reformative approach of penology and mandates that eligible prisoners be considered fairly and objectively. 10. It is well settled that though remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 626, has laid down that while considering premature release, authorities must evaluate factors such as whether the offence affects society at large, the likelihood of recurrence, and the potential for the convict’s reformation. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government 7 of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 161 it has been held that orders relating to remission are subject to judicial review if they are arbitrary, mala fide, or based on irrelevant considerations. Further, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the benefit of remission policy must be extended in a fair and consistent manner. 11. The philosophy underlying premature release is reformative rather than retributive. Long incarceration coupled with demonstrated good conduct and positive reports from competent authorities entitles a prisoner to objective and fair consideration under the applicable Rules. Once the statutory bar is found inapplicable, and the relevant authorities have not expressed any adverse opinion, denial of premature release on a misconceived interpretation of the Rule amounts to arbitrariness and offends the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. 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 is based on mere conjectures and not on any cogent material and also not considered the fact that similarly situated co-accused namely Shivkumar @ Shiva who was also convicted along with the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of remission. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 13. Considering his long period of incarceration i.e. more than 16 years of actual incarceration as on 18.06.2026, and more than 20 years including remission and the fact that similarly situated co-accused namely Shivkumar @ Shiva who was also convicted along with the 8 petitioner has already been granted the benefit of remission, this Court holds that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of premature release. The action of the respondent authorities in denying such benefit on an erroneous interpretation of the Rule is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as explained in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.5.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the competent authority is hereby 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 usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu