1 CGHC010237932026 2026:CGHC:27893-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 364 of 2026 Parmanand Nishad S/o Jugnutamram Nishad, Aged About 45 Years Resident of Village Aalbaras, P. S. Bori, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Jail, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), P I N Code – 492002 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Jail, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) P I N Code -492002. 3 - Director General, Prisons And Correctional Services, Jail Headquarters, Sector -19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), P I N Code – 492002. 4 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), P I N Code- 492001. 5 - Collector, Durg District Durg (C.G.) P I N Code - 492001. ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07 . 07 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “a) Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari & quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 10.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P/1) whereby the Petitioner's Application for Remission of Sentence has been incorrectly rejected by invoking Rule 358 (7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. c) Hold that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of premature release from Jail in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent State Authorities to grant/accord the benefit of premature release from Jail to the Petitioner herein and to release the Petitioner from Jail forthwith. e) Grant the cost of the petition to the Petitioner. f) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with one co-accused Suresh Vishwakarma have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to pay fine, additional RI for 6 months and RI for 7 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to pay fine, addition RI for 3 months in Session Trial No. 166 of 2010, vide order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg, District Durg 3 (C.G.). Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred CRA No. 258 of 2014 before this Court and this Court vide its judgment dated 17.03.2022 dismissed the appeal and the Special Leave Petitions preferred assailing the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2022 passed in CRA No. 258/2014 has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on and is in jail since 22.06.2010 and had served the actual imprisonment of around 15 years and 24 days as on 13.05.2024, being 19 years 3 months and 26 days of imprisonment along with remission as on 13.05.2024 and as on date the petitioner has served the actual imprisonment of almost 16 years and almost 20 years of imprisonment including remission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application for premature release is wholly arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It is contended that after the petitioner became eligible for consideration of premature release, the Jail Superintendent sought the opinion of the Presiding Judge, who, by memorandum dated 15.07.2025, specifically recommended acceptance of the petitioner's application for remission. The Jail Superintendent also forwarded his favourable recommendation to the Director General, Prisons & Correctional Services. Despite these favourable recommendations, the State Government rejected the petitioner's claim without assigning any reasonable or logical reasons as 4 mandatorily required under Rule 358(7)(viii). The impugned order, therefore, suffers from complete non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 5. Learned counsel also submits that by virtue of the amendment notified on 23.04.2025, the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule 358(5)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, having undergone the requisite period of actual imprisonment. It is argued that the sole basis for rejection, namely the apprehension expressed by the wife of the deceased regarding a possible threat from the petitioner, cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground to deny premature release, particularly when neither the Presiding Judge nor the Jail Superintendent recorded any adverse opinion against the petitioner. The State Sentence Review Board has ignored the relevant statutory parameters governing premature release, including the petitioner's conduct in prison, the favourable recommendations of the competent authorities and the object underlying the remission policy. The decision is, therefore, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandate of Rule 358(7)(viii), warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petitioner's application for remission and submits that the authorities have rightly rejected the prayer for grant of remission. 5 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 432 of the Cr.P.C (now under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which states as under :- “432. Power to suspend or remit sentences.—(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced. (2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists. (3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer, without 6 warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. (4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will. (5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with: Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a sentence of fine) passed on a male person above the age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and: (a) where such petition is made by the person sentenced, it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or (b) where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail. (6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any section of this Code or of any other law which restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or his property. (7) In this section and in Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. (now under Section 474 of the BNSS), the expression “appropriate Government” means,— (a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave 7 Petition (Crl.) No. 6166 of 2023 (page 7 to 17) order referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government; (b) in other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed.” (emphasis added) Under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC, the appropriate Government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment of a convict. The remission can be granted either unconditionally or subject to certain conditions. As expressly provided under sub-section (1) of Section 432, actual remission takes effect only after the convict accepts the conditions. Thus, there is no doubt that there exists a power in the appropriate Government to grant remission subject to compliance with conditions.” 9. Insofar as the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Constitution Bench in the case of Union of India vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Others, reported in (2016) 7 SCC 1 has approved the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 294. The view taken is that the decision to grant remission has to be well-informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned. 10. In Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Others, in CRA No. 4370 of 2024, decided on 21.10.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “11. It is no doubt true that the power to remit a sentence under Section 432(1) of the Cr.P.C. is 8 discretionary. One of the considerations for the exercise of the discretion can be public interest. The gravity and nature of the offences committed by the convict are also factors to be considered. The antecedents of the convict are also relevant. Almost all the States have a written policy on the grant of remission under Section 432(1) of the Cr.P.C. For example, the 1st respondent, the State of Gujarat, has a policy that forms part of the Government Resolution dated 23rd January 2014, which was amended from time to time. The said Government Resolution incorporates guidelines/policy for consideration of cases for grant of remission and premature release of prisoners. The existence of a rational policy is necessary to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power to grant a remission under Section 432(1) of the Cr.P.C. A convict cannot seek remission as a matter of right. However, he has a right to say that his case for the grant of remission ought to be considered in accordance with the law. The power under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. Therefore, conditions imposed while exercising the power under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. must be reasonable. The conditions must stand the test of scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the conditions imposed are arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiated due to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such arbitrary conditions may also violate the convict's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. xxx xxx xxx 17. Our conclusions can be summarised as under: 9 (i) Under subsection (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC or sub section (1) of Section 473 of the BNSS, the appropriate Government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment of a convict. The remission can be granted either unconditionally or subject to certain conditions; (ii) The decision to grant or not to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned; (iii) A convict cannot seek remission as a matter of right. However, he has a right to claim that his case for the grant of remission ought to be considered in accordance with the law and/or applicable policy adopted by the appropriate Government; (iv) Conditions imposed while exercising the power under subsection (1) of Section 432 or subsection (1) of Section 473 of the BNSS must be reasonable. If the conditions imposed are arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiated due to violation of Article 14. Such arbitrary conditions may violate the convict's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution; (v) The effect of remitting the sentence, in part or full, results in the restoration of liberty of a convict. If the order granting remission is to be cancelled or revoked, it will naturally affect the liberty of the convict. The reason is that when action is taken under subsection (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS, it results in the convict being taken to prison for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence. Therefore, this drastic power cannot be exercised without following the principles of natural justice. A show cause notice must be served 10 on the convict before taking action to withdraw/cancel remission. The show cause notice must contain the grounds on which action under sub section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of Section 473 of BNNS is sought to be taken. The concerned authority must give the convict an opportunity to file a reply and of being heard. After that, the authority must pass an order stating the reasons in brief. The convict can always challenge the order of cancellation of remission by adopting a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.; and (vi) Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se, is not a ground to cancel the remission order. The allegations of breach of condition cannot be taken at their face value, and whether a case for cancellation of remission is made out will have to be decided in the facts of each case. Every case of breach cannot invite cancellation of the order of remission. The appropriate Government will have to consider the nature of the breach alleged against the convict. A minor or a trifling breach cannot be a ground to cancel remission. There must be some material to substantiate the allegations of breach. Depending upon the seriousness and gravity thereof, action can be taken under subsection (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS of cancellation of the order remitting sentence.” 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner became eligible for consideration of premature release in terms of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It is not in dispute that the Jail 11 Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg sought the opinion of the Presiding Judge, who, by memorandum dated 15.07.2025, recommended acceptance of the petitioner's case for remission. The Jail Superintendent also forwarded his own favourable recommendation to the Director General, Prisons & Correctional Services. Thus, the competent authorities entrusted with assessing the petitioner's conduct and suitability for premature release had recommended his case for consideration. 12. The impugned order dated 10.04.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim has been passed by invoking Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. A plain reading of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that while the State Government is empowered to accept or reject the recommendation for premature release, any order of rejection must be supported by reasonable and logical reasons. The impugned order, however, merely refers to the apprehension expressed by the wife of the deceased without independently evaluating the petitioner's case in the light of the statutory parameters governing premature release. The order neither considers the favourable opinion of the Presiding Judge nor the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent, nor does it disclose any objective assessment regarding the petitioner's conduct in prison, likelihood of reformation, or any other relevant consideration. The statutory requirement of passing a reasoned and speaking order has thus not been satisfied. 13. It is a settled principle of administrative law that where a statute requires reasons to be recorded, the authority is under a legal obligation 12 to demonstrate due application of mind by assigning reasons which are rational, germane and capable of judicial scrutiny. Recording of reasons is an indispensable component of fairness in administrative decision- making and ensures transparency and accountability. In the present case, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and fails to satisfy the mandate of Rule 358(7)(viii). While the apprehension of the victim's family may constitute one of the relevant considerations, it cannot be treated as the sole basis for rejecting a claim for premature release without examining all other relevant factors contemplated under the statutory scheme. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 10.04.2026 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 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 Chandra