1 CGHC010095402026 2026:CGHC:29289-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 138 of 2026 1 - Taran Sahu S/o Shobhit Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Gourmati, Police Station Chowki - Sahaspur, Police Station - Lohara, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. Presently Lodged In Durg Central Jail, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Since In Jail Through His Friend Ankur Gupta S/o Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Presently Aged 41 Years, R/o Flat No.406, Anandpuram, Kohkha, Police Station - Supela, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... 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, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General ( Prisons And Rehabilitation Services) Jail Department, Jail Headquarters, Sector -19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jail Superintendent Durg, Central Jail, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/07/2026 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.14 18:53:29 +0530 2 Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 05.01.2026 (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. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner herein was convicted vide judgment dated 29.01.2011 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 26/2009 and has been in custody since 26.05.2009, undergoing life imprisonment. She further submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner, being Criminal Appeal No. 135/2011, has also been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.04.2015, affirming the conviction and sentence, though the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is stated to be pending. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has completed 21 years and 13 days of imprisonment (including remission) as on 10.06.2025 and has undergone more than 16 years and 9 months of actual imprisonment, thereby becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. She further submits that the petitioner has maintained 3 good conduct in jail, was released on parole on four occasions and, on each occasion, his conduct remained satisfactory. It is further submitted that the learned Presiding Judge, by memo dated 25.04.2024, expressed no objection to the grant of remission, and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, also recommended the petitioner's case for premature release. However, despite the favourable opinion of the trial Court and the Jail Superintendent, the respondent authorities, by the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, rejected the petitioner's application solely on the ground of the gravity of the offence and the adverse opinion furnished by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, without considering the relevant factors mandated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, including the petitioner's conduct in prison, prospects of reformation, satisfactory parole conduct and other relevant materials. It is contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, bereft of cogent and logical reasons, suffers from non-application of mind, ignores the mandatory considerations prescribed under the Rules as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of W.B., (2000) 7 SCC 626, and is, therefore, liable to be quashed with a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of premature release in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for grave and heinous offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to the judgment dated 29.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Sessions Trial No. 26/2009, which has already been affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 135/2011. It is submitted that although the petitioner has become eligible for 4 consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, such eligibility does not confer any indefeasible right to seek remission or premature release. Learned State counsel further contended that the competent authorities have considered the petitioner's case in accordance with the amended provisions of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, and while doing so have taken into account the adverse reports furnished by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, who have opined that, having regard to the nature of the offence involving robbery coupled with murder, the petitioner ought not to be released prematurely. It is submitted that the State Government has rightly considered the gravity of the offence, the adverse opinion of the district authorities, and all relevant materials placed before it while rejecting the petitioner's application by the impugned order dated 05.01.2026. According to the learned State counsel, the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 5. It is submitted that consideration for premature release or remission is not a matter of right, and mere completion of the qualifying period of imprisonment does not automatically entitle a convict to be released. The learned State counsel contends that the power to grant remission is to be exercised by the State Government after taking into consideration all relevant factors prescribed under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, including the opinion of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, which constitute relevant material for assessing the suitability of a prisoner for premature release. It is further submitted that the petitioner 5 stands convicted for serious offences of robbery and murder, and the competent authorities, upon considering the gravity of the offence and the adverse reports submitted by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, have rejected the petitioner's claim by the impugned order dated 05.01.2026. According to the learned State counsel, the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the relevant materials and does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 7. The petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has remained in custody since 26.05.2009. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed 21 years and 13 days of imprisonment (including remission) as on 10.06.2025 and has undergone more than 16 years and 9 months of actual imprisonment, thereby becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The material placed on record further reveals that the learned Presiding Judge, by memo dated 25.04.2024, has expressed no objection to the grant of remission in favour of the petitioner. It is also evident from the nominal roll and the report forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, that the petitioner's conduct in jail has been satisfactory, he has been released on parole on four occasions and has duly complied with the conditions of parole on each occasion, whereafter the Jail Superintendent recommended his case for premature release in accordance with the applicable Rules. 6 8. The rejection of the petitioner's application for premature release by the respondent-State vide the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 is primarily founded on the gravity of the offence and the adverse opinions furnished by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the adverse opinion is largely based on the nature of the offence and a general apprehension regarding the petitioner's release, without disclosing any objective material to indicate that the petitioner is likely to revert to criminal activities or pose a threat to society. At the same time, the material on record indicates that the learned Presiding Judge has expressed no objection to the grant of remission, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, has recommended the petitioner's case, and the petitioner has maintained satisfactory conduct in prison, including during the four occasions when he was released on parole. The impugned order does not reflect due consideration of these relevant factors as contemplated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, nor does it assign independent, logical and cogent reasons for discarding the favourable reports and recommendations 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. In the present case, the Petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria inasmuch as he has completed more than the requisite period of incarceration and has maintained 7 good conduct, as also reflected from the recommendation of the jail authorities. The adverse opinion of the District Magistrate, in absence of supporting material, cannot override the statutory scheme and the reformative intent underlying the said provision. 10. It is well settled that though remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C. (now Section 473 BNSS, 2023) 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 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 object of premature release is founded on the reformative theory of punishment rather than retribution. A convict who has undergone the prescribed period of incarceration and has demonstrated satisfactory conduct in prison is entitled to a fair, objective and reasoned consideration of his case under the applicable Rules. In the present case, the petitioner has completed the requisite period for consideration of premature release and has received a 'no objection' opinion from the learned Presiding Judge as well as a favourable recommendation from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, based on his satisfactory conduct. In such circumstances, the respondent 8 authorities were required to objectively consider all the relevant factors envisaged under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, while taking a decision on the petitioner's application. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 does not reflect due consideration of all the relevant factors prescribed under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. While the competent authority has relied upon the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, it has failed to assign cogent reasons for disregarding the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the recommendation of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, and the petitioner's satisfactory conduct in prison and during parole. Such an approach is contrary to the statutory scheme governing premature release and renders the decision-making process arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 13. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the petitioner has completed the requisite qualifying period for consideration of premature release, has maintained satisfactory conduct in prison, has received a 'no objection' opinion from the learned Presiding Judge and a favourable recommendation from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 cannot be sustained in law. The respondent authorities have failed to objectively consider all the relevant factors mandated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and have rejected the petitioner's claim without assigning reasonable and logical reasons, thereby rendering the impugned decision arbitrary and unsustainable. 14. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 9 The impugned order dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P-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 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 Alok