1 CGHC010126942026 2026:CGHC:29288-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 181 of 2026 Ganguram Khare S/o Dukhwa Ram Khare Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Dhour, P.S. Nandini Nagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. Presently Lodged In Durg Central Jail, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Since In Jail Through His Nephew Tiger Singh Khare, S/o Babulal, Presently Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dhour, Post Nardha, P.S. Nandini Nagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. 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, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. 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 18:51:05 +0530 2 Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Dy. 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 14.2.2026 (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 for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and vide judgment dated 02.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No. 151/2009, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 813/2011 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 25.05.2017. Thereafter, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being SLP No. 2766/2021 was also dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2021. He further submitted that the petitioner is presently lodged in Durg Central Jail and has completed more than 15 years, 4 months and 28 days of actual imprisonment as on 10.06.2025 and more than 20 years, 5 months and 6 days of imprisonment including remission. After the petitioner became eligible for consideration of premature release under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, an opinion was sought from the learned Presiding Judge, who vide 3 order dated 11.06.2024 expressed that the Court had no objection if the petitioner was granted remission of sentence. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10.06.2025 before the Jail Superintendent seeking premature release. The said application, along with the nominal roll, Form-A and other relevant documents, was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the District Magistrate, Durg vide letter dated 20.06.2025 and thereafter to respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 21.09.2025. He contended that the petitioner had been released on parole on 11 occasions, had surrendered within time on every occasion, and his conduct in jail as well as during parole remained satisfactory. However, the respondent-State, vide the impugned order dated 14.02.2026, rejected the petitioner's application solely on the ground that he had committed a serious offence and that adverse opinions had been furnished by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Durg, without assigning any cogent or logical reasons as required under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, the State Sentence Review Board is required to consider various relevant factors, including the opinion of the Court, the report of the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, and the jail record regarding the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner. He submitted that although the learned Presiding Judge had opined that the Court had no objection if the petitioner was granted remission and the jail authorities had also recommended his premature release on account of his satisfactory conduct, the impugned order merely relies upon the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police without considering the other mandatory parameters prescribed under Rule 358. It is 4 further contended that the impugned order is bereft of cogent and logical reasons and reflects no application of mind, as it rejects the petitioner's claim only on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and the adverse reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner had been released on parole on 11 occasions, had always surrendered within time, and there has never been any adverse report regarding his conduct either during parole or in jail. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, it is argued that while considering premature release, the authorities are required to evaluate the prisoner's present conduct, reformation and likelihood of rehabilitation rather than being guided solely by the nature of the offence. It is, therefore, submitted that the power under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 must be exercised on objective and rational considerations with due application of mind. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release in accordance with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and is undergoing life imprisonment for committing a grave and heinous offence. He submitted that the petitioner's case for premature release was duly considered by the competent authorities in accordance with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It was contended that while the opinion of the learned Presiding Judge and the jail authorities was taken into 5 consideration, adverse reports were also received from the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Durg, who opined that the petitioner's release would have an adverse impact on society. Based on the material placed before the State Sentence Review Board and considering the seriousness of the offence as well as the adverse recommendations of the district authorities, the State Government rejected the petitioner's application vide the impugned order dated 14.02.2026. Learned State counsel further submitted that premature release or remission is not a matter of right merely because a prisoner has completed the qualifying period of incarceration. The grant of such benefit is a matter of executive discretion to be exercised after considering all relevant factors prescribed under the Rules. It was argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any procedural irregularity or arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it was prayed 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. 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 6 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. 8. 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 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. 9. The philosophy underlying premature release is reformative rather than retributive. Long Incarceration coupled with demonstrated good conduct and positive reports from competent authorities entities 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. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this 7 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. The positive opinion of the sentencing Court and recommendation of the jail authorities have not been assigned due weightage. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. Considering his long period of incarceration, satisfactory conduct, favorable opinions of the competent authorities and absence of any statutory embargo, this Court holds that the petitioner is 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. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the competent authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission/premature release to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with the usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok