2026:CGHC:27040-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 351 of 2026 Haricharan Patel S/o Jagatram Patel Aged About 43 Years R/o Diyagarh, P.S- Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.), Presently Lodged In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Since In Jail Through His Son, Pankaj Patel, S/o Haricharan Patel, Aged About-21 Years, R/o- Diyagarh, P.S- Lailunga, District- Raigarh (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, 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 Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Ms Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.07.2026 Heard Ms Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Soumya Rai, learned Dy GA for the State. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.06 15:36:11 +0530 Wpcr 351 of 2026 2 1. 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 12.06.2026 (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.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 325, 506B, 364, 302, 201 read with section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC vide judgment dated 14.05.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Raigarh District-Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 63/2009. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence were affirmed by this Court in CRA No. 551/2013 vide judgment dated 10.11.2016. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner, being SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 11048/2017, was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.08.2017. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, along with nine other co-accused persons, was convicted in connection with kidnapping and death of one Nasim Khan while constituting an unlawful assembly. The petitioner has remained in custody since 20.04.2009 and, as per the custody certificate, has undergone more than 20 years 4 months and 12 days of sentence including Wpcr 351 of 2026 3 remission as on 07.12.2025. His conduct in jail has consistently been reported to be satisfactory and he has been released on parole on ten occasions, returning to prison within the stipulated period every time without any adverse report. 4. After the petitioner became eligible for consideration of premature release under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, the opinion of the learned Presiding Judge was sought under Section 473(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Vide memorandum dated 01.05.2025, the learned Presiding Judge opined that there was no objection to grant of remission after completion of twenty years of sentence including remission. Thereafter, the proposal was processed by the jail authorities and forwarded to the competent authority. However, by the impugned order dated 12.06.2026, the State Government rejected the petitioner's claim observing that the offence committed was heinous in nature and that the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate had given adverse reports, also expressing apprehension regarding the victim’s safety upon release. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It is contended that Rule 358(4) requires consideration of 11 parameters while Rule 358(7)(iii) mandates consideration of the opinion of the sentencing Court, report of the Collector, jail conduct report and other relevant materials. Further, Rule 358(7)(vii) specifically obligates the State Government to record reasonable and logical reasons while rejecting the recommendation for premature release. According to learned Wpcr 351 of 2026 4 counsel, the impugned order merely reproduces the gravity of the offence and the adverse opinion of the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate without recording any independent satisfaction or assigning reasons as required under the Rules. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner has completed more than twenty years of imprisonment including remission, his conduct throughout incarceration has remained satisfactory, and he has been released on parole on several occasions without any violation whatsoever. The learned Presiding Judge has also expressed no objection to grant of remission after completion of twenty years including remission. Learned counsel submits that the respondent authorities have ignored all these relevant considerations and have rejected the petition solely on the basis of the nature of the offence, which is impermissible in law. 7. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, wherein it has been held that opinions of local residents and witnesses cannot by themselves determine whether a convict would be a danger to society upon release and that relevant considerations such as reformation of the prisoner and reports of jail authorities must be duly examined. She further stated that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature. Apart from referring to the gravity of the offence and alleged criminal antecedents, the authorities have failed to consider the relevant factors, namely the long period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, his satisfactory jail conduct, repeated grant of parole without any misuse, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, and his entitlement to consideration under the Wpcr 351 of 2026 5 applicable rules. The impugned order does not disclose any proper application of mind and is bereft of cogent reasons. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities have taken into account irrelevant considerations while ignoring material and relevant circumstances. The powers under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are required to be exercised upon due consideration of all relevant factors, and the recording of proper subjective satisfaction is a sine qua non for the exercise of such powers. She also stated that the since the petitioner is presently in judicial custody, he has duly authorized his son to institute and prosecute the present petition on his behalf. 9. Lastly, learned counsel submits that one of the co-convicts, namely Bodhan Yadav, who was convicted in the same case and under similar circumstances, has already been granted the benefit of remission and was released on 05.06.2025. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court has also granted similar relief to a similarly situated prisoner vide order dated 29.04.2026 passed in WPCR No. 233/2026. The petitioner, therefore, seeks parity and submits that the rejection of his claim for premature release is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner stands on identical footing and denial of similar benefit without recording any distinguishing feature is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 deserves to be quashed and the petitioner be directed to be released forthwith. Wpcr 351 of 2026 6 10. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner has been convicted for extremely grave offences including murder committed by an unlawful assembly after kidnapping the deceased and, therefore, the State Sentence Review Board rightly considered the seriousness of the crime while examining the petitioner's claim. It is submitted that the reports of the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate disclose that there exists apprehension of threat to the petitioner's life as well as likelihood of disturbance of public order, and therefore the Board did not recommend his premature release. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the power under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier Section 432 Cr.P.C.) is discretionary in nature and a convict does not possess any vested or fundamental right to claim remission or premature release merely because he has completed the qualifying period. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed after consideration of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 13. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 325, 506-B, 364, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the IPC vide judgment dated 14.05.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Case No.63/2009. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court in CRA No.551/2013 vide Wpcr 351 of 2026 7 judgment dated 10.11.2016 and the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.07.2024. 14. The record further reveals that the petitioner has remained in custody since 20.04.2009 and as per the custody certificate, he has undergone more than 20 years 4 months and 12 days of sentence including remission as on 07.12.2025. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has completed more than 16 years of actual imprisonment. The custody certificate and jail records further indicate that the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory throughout his incarceration. 15. It is also borne out from the record that upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, an opinion was sought from the learned Presiding Judge. The learned Presiding Judge, vide communication dated 01.05.2025, observed that the petitioner had regularly earned remissions on account of good conduct and expressed no objection to grant of remission. It is further evident that the petitioner was released on parole on ten occasions and there is no allegation of misuse of liberty or violation of any parole condition. On each occasion, the petitioner surrendered before the authorities within the prescribed time. 16. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for premature release by order dated 12.06.2026 is sustainable in law. 17. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The Rule contemplates consideration of the Wpcr 351 of 2026 8 case of an eligible life convict by the State Sentence Review Board after examining various factors including the prisoner's conduct and behaviour in jail, the opinion of the sentencing Court, the report of the Collector and Superintendent of Police and other relevant circumstances having bearing on his release. The Rule further provides that while the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation of the Board, any order of rejection must disclose reasonable and logical reasons. 18. The law relating to premature release and remission is no longer res integra. In Laxman Naskar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering premature release, the competent authority is required to examine factors such as the possibility of recurrence of crime, the potential of the prisoner for reformation and rehabilitation, and whether his continued incarceration serves any useful purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that opinions of local residents and witnesses cannot by themselves constitute determinative factors and that due importance must be attached to the reports regarding the prisoner's conduct and reformation. 19. In Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that orders relating to remission are subject to judicial review and may be interfered with where the decision-making process is arbitrary, mala fide or based upon irrelevant considerations. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, it was emphasized that remission policies must be implemented in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner. Wpcr 351 of 2026 9 20. Upon careful scrutiny of the impugned order, this Court finds that the petitioner's claim has been rejected mainly on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and on the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. The order also takes note of the opinion of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police regarding threat perception. However, the impugned order does not reflect any meaningful consideration of several relevant circumstances, namely, the petitioner's long period of incarceration, his satisfactory jail conduct, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the fact that he was released on parole on ten occasions without any adverse incident and his overall reformation during imprisonment. 21. The gravity of the offence undoubtedly constitutes a relevant factor while considering premature release. Nevertheless, once a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration under the applicable Rules, the competent authority is required to undertake a holistic assessment of all relevant factors. The impugned order does not disclose why the favourable materials available on record were found insufficient or how the adverse recommendations outweighed the positive indicators of reform and rehabilitation. 22. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that one of the co-convicts, namely Bodhan Yadav, who was convicted in the same case, has already been granted the benefit of remission and released on 05.06.2025. Though the principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically, it nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance which ought to have been considered by the authorities while evaluating the petitioner's claim. Wpcr 351 of 2026 10 23. The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. Long incarceration coupled with satisfactory conduct and demonstrated reform are significant considerations which cannot be ignored. The object of the Rules is to ensure that a prisoner who has undergone substantial incarceration and has exhibited signs of reformation receives fair and objective consideration for reintegration into society. 24. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned decision as contemplated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The order fails to demonstrate due consideration of relevant factors and therefore cannot be sustained in law. 25. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 12.06.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release/remission is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if now required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual terms and conditions a may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma