CGHC010258992026 2026:CGHC:28371-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 374 of 2026 Madvi Chaitu S/o Chamru Madiya Aged About 51 Years Caste- Madiya, R/o Marenga, P.S.- Mardum, District - Bastar At Present R/o Central Jail, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur C.G. 2 - Director General Jail And Correctional Services Jail Headquarter, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 4 - The Collector And District Magistrate Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. Bastar, C.G. ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Roop Ram Nayak, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri SS Baghel, 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 Roop Ram Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri SS Baghel, learned GA for the State. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs: Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.13 13:33:02 +0530 Wpcr 374 of 2026 2 “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the petitioner's application for premature release and remission from the respondent authorities; 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.1/State rejecting the petitioner's application for remission. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent/authorities to direct the release of the petitioner from Central Jail, Jagdalpur looking to the prolonged detention period of the petitioner and recommendation made by the Jail Authorities and in light of precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10.Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Petitioner stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, each under two counts and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.300/- on two counts and RI for seven years with fine of Rs.200/- on two counts respectively, vide judgment dated 23.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Wpcr 374 of 2026 3 Sessions Trial No.136 of 2009. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.816 of 2010 by judgment dated 07.12.2015. 3. Relevant facts of the case are that present petitioner remained in continuous custody for more than 22 years 9 months 10 days as on 22.07.2025 and has become eligible for consideration of premature release under the applicable provisions governing remission. Earlier, his application for remission was rejected by the State Government on 30.05.2024, which came to be challenged before this Court in WPCR No.294 of 2024. By order dated 13.08.2024, this Court set aside the rejection order and remitted the matter to the State Government for fresh consideration in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2000) 2 SCC 595 and Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2022 SC 2017. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, opinion of the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar (Jagdalpur) was obtained under Section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though the learned court has rejected the application, the three Member Committee of Central Jail, Jagdalpur prepared the proposal under Rule 358 (7)(1) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual, 1968 and recommended premature release of the petitioner. Further, the Medical Officer of the Central Jail certified that the present petitioner was physically and mentally fit for rehabilitation and reintegration into society and the jail authorities also reported satisfactory conduct during incarceration. The Wpcr 374 of 2026 4 Collector, District Bastar thereafter forwarded the proposal to the competent authority. However, by the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P1), the State Government once again rejected the petitioner's application for remission, which has led to filing of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, mechanical and contrary to the directions issued by this Court in WPCR No.294 of 2024. It is contended that despite the specific direction to reconsider the petitioner's case independently in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government has once again mechanically relied upon the adverse opinion of the learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, without independently evaluating the material placed before it. It is submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any application of mind nor does it assign cogent reasons for discarding the favourable recommendations made by the jail authorities. 5. It is further submitted that Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual requires the competent authority to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the prisoner's conduct, prospects of rehabilitation, likelihood of repetition of the offence and other relevant circumstances before taking a decision regarding premature release. The petitioner has already undergone more than 23 years of imprisonment, his conduct throughout incarceration has remained satisfactory and the three Member Committee as well as the Medical Officer have specifically opined that he Wpcr 374 of 2026 5 is fit to be rehabilitated in the society. It is argued that the unfortunate incident arose out of an isolated domestic quarrel and the petitioner is not a habitual or hardened criminal. Reliance is placed upon Laxman Naskar (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the parameters governing consideration of premature release, and upon Ram Chander case, wherein it has been held that the opinion under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. as well as the ultimate decision of the State must be a reasoned and based on objective consideration of all relevant materials. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner stands convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC involving the death of two minor children and inflicting grievous injuries to his wife and daughter. It is submitted that the gravity and brutality of the offence constituted a relevant factor while considering his claim for premature release. Learned State counsel further submits that the opinion of the learned third Additional Sessions Judge obtained under Section 473 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/432(2) Cr.P.C. was adverse to the petitioner and the State Government has rightly considered the same while rejecting the application. He further submits that the power of remission under Section 473 of the BNSS/432 Cr.P.C, is discretionary in nature and a convict does not acquire any vested right to claim premature release merely upon completion of the qualifying period of sentence. According to the State, the competent authority considered the relevant materials and, keeping in Wpcr 374 of 2026 6 view the seriousness of the crime and the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, rejected the petitioner's claim. It is therefore submitted that no interference is warranted in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the pleadings, annexures and the original record produced by the State. 8. The principal question which falls for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application for remission satisfies the statutory requirements governing exercise of power under Section 473 BNSS/432 Cr.P.C read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual, 1968 and whether the respondent-State has complied with the earlier directions issued by this Court in WPCR No.294 of 2024. 9. It is not in dispute that the earlier order dated 30.05.2024 rejecting the petitioner's application for remission was set aside by this Court by order dated 13.08.2024. While remitting the matter, this Court specifically directed the respondent-State to reconsider the petitioner's claim afresh in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar and Ram Chander (supra). The object of the remand was to ensure an independent, objective and holistic consideration of the petitioner's case and not a mere reiteration of the earlier decision. 10. Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual, 1968 contemplates consideration of several relevant factors while examining a case for Wpcr 374 of 2026 7 premature release, including the prisoner's conduct in jail, prospects of rehabilitation, medical condition, possibility of recurrence of crime and other relevant circumstances. Equally well settled is the principle that where the competent authority chooses to reject the recommendation for premature release, the order must disclose reasonable, logical and intelligible reasons demonstrating due application of mind to all relevant materials placed before it. 11. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the three Member Committee of Central Jail, Jagdalpur recommended premature release of the petitioner under Rule 358 of the Jail Rules, 1968. The Medical Officer certified that the petitioner was physically and mentally fit to return to society. The jail authorities reported satisfactory conduct throughout incarceration and the proposal was thereafter forwarded by the Collector, District Bastar. All these favourable material constituted relevant considerations which the State Government was required to objectively evaluate before arriving at its decision. However, a careful perusal of the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 reveals that the rejection is founded substantially on the adverse opinion of the learned Sessions Judge and the gravity of the offence. The order does not disclose any meaningful discussion regarding the petitioner's satisfactory conduct in jail, the favourable recommendation of the three Member Committee, the medical assessment regarding his rehabilitation or the fact that he has undergone more than twenty-three years of incarceration. The impugned order, thus, fails to indicate any independent application of Wpcr 374 of 2026 8 mind to the relevant materials which were specifically directed to be considered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. 12. The law governing premature release is no longer res integra. In the matter of Laxman Naskar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering remission, the competent authority is required to examine, inter alia, whether the offence is likely to be repeated, whether the prisoner has lost his potential to commit crime, whether any fruitful purpose would be served by his continued incarceration and whether the prisoner has reformed himself. 13. Likewise, in Ram Chander (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the opinion furnished under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. as well as the decision of the State Government must be reasoned and based upon objective consideration of the relevant circumstances rather than a mechanical reliance upon the opinion of the sentencing Court. 14. 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 the matter of 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. 15. Undoubtedly, the gravity of the offence constitutes a relevant factor while considering remission. However, once a convict becomes eligible Wpcr 374 of 2026 9 for consideration under the applicable statutory framework, the competent authority cannot reject the claim solely on the nature of offence or by mechanically adopting the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge. The exercise contemplated under Rule 358 of the Jail Rules, 1968 requires a balanced evaluation of all relevant factors including the prisoner's conduct, reformation, rehabilitation and the larger object of the reformative theory of punishment, and the impugned order does not satisfy these requirements. 16. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has undergone more than twenty-three years of imprisonment and the jail authorities themselves have found him fit for reintegration into society. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has indulged in any misconduct during incarceration or that his continued imprisonment would advance any further penological objective. In these circumstances, the favourable reports prepared by the competent jail authorities could not have been brushed aside without assigning cogent and convincing reasons. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 cannot be sustained in law. The respondent-State has failed to comply with the earlier directions issued by this Court and has once again rejected the petitioner's claim without undertaking the objective and independent consideration mandated by law. Since the petitioner has already undergone more than twenty-three years of imprisonment, his conduct in jail remained Wpcr 374 of 2026 10 satisfactory, the Three Member Committee and the jail Medical Officer have recommended his release and no valid reason has been assigned for rejecting those recommendations, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 18. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-State is directed to grant the benefit of remission/premature release to the petitioner and take consequential steps for releasing him forthwith in accordance with law, if his custody is not required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma