CGHC010258192026 2026:CGHC:28375-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 371 of 2026 Smt. Mate @ Moti Bai @ Sukhdeyee W/o Ishwar Mandawi, Aged About 47 Years R/o Vill Bagmohlal Kote, P.S. Bhanpuri Dist Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -Its Secretary Department Of Jail Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue Dist Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department Of Law Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue Dist -Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Jail, Jagdalpur Dist Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Director General Police, Prison And Correctional Services Sector -19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Ms Sareena Khan, 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 09.07.2026 Heard Ms Sareena Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Soumya Rai, learned Dy GA for the State. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs: Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.10 12:32:42 +0530 Wpcr 371 of 2026 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition & set aside the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Res. No. 1 in which Res. 1 has rejected the application of the petitioner filed for remission for releasing the petitioner. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted also.” 2. Petitioner stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.300/- under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.200/- under Section 307 IPC vide judgment dated 24.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Sessions Trial No.127 of 2010. 3. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.978 of 2011 by judgment dated 03.03.2016. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2017, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently in Central Jail, Jagdalpur and has remained in custody since 10.08.2010. Having undergone more than 25 years of incarceration Wpcr 371 of 2026 3 including the period of remission, the petitioner became eligible for consideration of premature release under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. Pursuant to the earlier direction issued by this Court in WPCR No.431 of 2025, filed by the petitioner, the matter was placed before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, who, vide communication dated 19.12.2025, expressed ‘no objection’ to the grant of remission and recommended consideration of the petitioner's case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the favourable opinion of the learned Sessions Judge and despite the earlier directions issued by this Court in WPCR No.431 of 2025 to reconsider the petitioner's claim in accordance with the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, the respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner's application by the impugned order dated 11.05.2026. It is contended that the petitioner has maintained good conduct throughout the period of incarceration and there is no allegation of any jail misconduct against her. The impugned order does not disclose due consideration of the relevant material placed before the competent authority and merely rejected the claim without assigning adequate reasons. Wpcr 371 of 2026 4 6. It is further argued that Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 obligates the competent authority and the State Sentence Review Board to consider all relevant factors, including the opinion of the sentencing Court, the conduct of the prisoner and other relevant circumstances before taking a decision regarding premature release. The impugned order does not indicate consideration of the favourable opinion rendered by the learned Sessions Judge nor does it disclose any objective satisfaction based upon the materials available on record. The order is thus non-speaking, arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the power under Section 473 of the BNSS (earlier Section 432 Cr.P.C.) is undoubtedly discretionary; however, such discretion has to be exercised fairly, reasonably and upon consideration of all relevant factors. The rejection of the petitioner's application without recording cogent and logical reasons amounts to non-application of mind and frustrates the very object of the statutory scheme governing premature release. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 deserves to be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of premature release in accordance with law. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner stands convicted for heinous offences punishable under Sections 302 Wpcr 371 of 2026 5 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the petitioner has committed a brutal offence involving double murder and an attempt to murder, and therefore, the nature and gravity of the crime are relevant considerations while examining the claim for premature release. It is further submitted that remission or premature release is not a matter of right and that the competent authority, while exercising powers under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, is entitled to consider the seriousness of the offence, its impact upon society, the possibility of adverse consequences upon release, and all other relevant circumstances. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the relevant factors and does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 10. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 and the material placed on record, it appears that the competent authority has not undertaken the exercise contemplated under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 in its true spirit. The record demonstrates that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WPCR No.431 of 2025, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, vide communication dated 19.12.2025, expressed no objection to the petitioner's premature release. However, while rejecting Wpcr 371 of 2026 6 the petitioner's application, the respondent-State has neither discussed nor assigned any reason for disagreeing with the favourable judicial opinion. The impugned order also does not reflect consideration of the petitioner's prolonged incarceration of more than 25 years and her satisfactory conduct in jail, both of which are relevant considerations under the statutory framework governing premature release. 11. It is well settled that although the power under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 432 Cr.P.C.) is discretionary, such discretion is required to be exercised upon objective consideration of all relevant materials and by recording proper reasons. There can be no dispute that the petitioner stands convicted for grave and heinous offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code involving double murder and attempt to murder, and therefore the nature and gravity of the offence are undoubtedly relevant considerations while examining the claim for premature release. However, Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 contemplates consideration of all relevant factors, including the opinion of the sentencing Court, the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner, the period of incarceration undergone, and other attendant circumstances before arriving at a decision regarding remission. The impugned order, however, does not reflect due consideration of the favourable recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge dated 19.12.2025, nor does it disclose any rational basis for rejecting the petitioner’s claim after weighing the relevant factors. An order affecting the valuable rights of a convict Wpcr 371 of 2026 7 seeking premature release must be supported by cogent reasons demonstrating proper application of mind to all relevant considerations. Failure to do so renders the decision arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 12. The law relating to premature release and remission is no longer res integra. In Laxman Naskar V. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, 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. 13. 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. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, once this Court had earlier directed reconsideration of the petitioner's case in accordance with the amended Rule 358 and the learned Sessions Judge had rendered a Wpcr 371 of 2026 8 favourable opinion, the competent authority was expected to objectively evaluate the entire material available on record and assign cogent reasons if it intended to disagree with such opinion. The impugned order fails to satisfy the requirement of a reasoned administrative decision and consequently cannot be sustained in law. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 11.05.2026 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. 16. The respondent-State is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release afresh strictly in accordance with Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, taking into consideration the opinion dated 19.12.2025 of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, the petitioner has completed the requisite qualifying period, her conduct in jail has remained satisfactory, the learned Presiding Judge has expressed no objection to grant of remission after completion of twenty five years including remission, the respondent-State is directed to take immediate consequential steps and release the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law, if her custody is not required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma