1 CGHC010098692026 2026:CGHC:29291-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 150 of 2026 Giriwar Patre S/o Anand Das Patre Aged About 49 Years R/o Charkhura Kala, Police Station- Pandatarai, District- Kabirdham (C.G.), Presently Lodged In Durg Central Jail, Durg (C.G.) Since In Jail Through His Friend Ankur Gupta, S/o- Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Presently Aged About 41 Years, R/o- Flat No. 406, Anandpuram, Kohkha, Police Station- Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... 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 (C.G.) 2 - Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Services) Jail Department, Jail Headquarters, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent Durg, Central Jail, Durg (C.G.) 4 - Collector Kabirdham District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.15 10:43:14 +0530 2 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 Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following relief(s):- “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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 01.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 45/2010. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in CRA No. 775/2011 vide judgment dated 15.07.2015. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble 3 Supreme Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2019 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8969/2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody since 29.06.2010 and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Durg. It is submitted that as on 10.06.2025, the petitioner had undergone 20 years, 2 months and 3 days of imprisonment including remission and 14 years, 11 months and 12 days of actual imprisonment, and has now completed more than 15 years and 8 months of actual imprisonment. During the entire period of incarceration, the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory. It is further submitted that the petitioner was released on parole on three occasions and, on each occasion, he complied with all the conditions imposed and surrendered before the jail authorities within time. 5. Learned counsel further contends that upon the petitioner becoming 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 communication dated 02.01.2025, expressed no objection to the grant of remission to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for premature release, which was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent along with the nominal roll and other relevant documents. The Jail Superintendent also recommended the petitioner's release, having found his conduct in jail to be satisfactory. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application for premature release was, however, rejected by the State Government vide order dated 05.01.2026 solely on the ground that his release would have a negative impact on society and on the basis of 4 the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. It is contended that under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, the State Sentence Review Board is required to undertake an enquiry on the parameters prescribed under sub-rule (4) and consider all relevant factors under sub-rule (7), including the opinion of the Court, the report of the Collector, and the jail report regarding the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner. It is further submitted that although the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation, any order rejecting remission must assign reasonable and logical reasons, which is absent in the present case. 7. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, and submits that while considering premature release, the authorities are required to examine relevant considerations such as the conduct of the prisoner, his reformation, and the likelihood of his reverting to criminal activities, rather than merely relying upon the views of local authorities or the gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature, as it merely refers to the gravity of the offence and the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police without considering the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent, the petitioner's satisfactory jail conduct, or his successful release on parole on three occasions. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have ignored the mandatory parameters prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, including the character of the crime, the petitioner's conduct in prison, and the probability of his reverting to criminal habits 5 or instigating others to commit offences after release. It is further submitted that no report of the concerned Welfare Officer regarding the petitioner's behaviour and the impact of his release on society was obtained before rejecting his application. According to the learned counsel, the authorities have considered irrelevant material while ignoring relevant factors, rendering the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable. She further submits that the powers under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are required to be exercised upon due application of mind and recording of proper subjective satisfaction. 9. Lastly, learned counsel submits that three co-accuseds, namely, Deepak Bai, Anand Das Patre and Sushila Bai Patre, who were convicted in the same case, have already been granted the benefit of remission by the State Government vide order dated 05.01.2026 and have since been released. The petitioner, therefore, seeks parity and submits that the rejection of his claim for premature release is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment. It is submitted that the grant of premature release or remission is not a matter of right and that mere completion of the requisite period of incarceration does not automatically entitle a prisoner to such benefit. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner's case was duly placed before the competent authorities and considered in accordance with the 6 provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The impugned order dated 05.01.2026 was passed after taking into consideration the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, who opined that the petitioner's release would have a negative impact on society and could endanger public peace. It is submitted that having regard to the gravity and nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, the State Government rightly rejected his application for premature release. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 12. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 01.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 45/2010. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in CRA No. 775/2011 vide judgment dated 15.07.2015. The Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8969/2015 preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2019. 13. The record further reveals that the petitioner has remained in custody since 29.06.2010 and, as on 10.06.2025, had undergone 20 years, 2 months and 3 days of imprisonment, including remission, and 14 years, 11 months and 12 days of actual imprisonment. It is also not in dispute 7 that, as on the date of filing of the present petition, the petitioner has completed more than 15 years and 8 months of actual imprisonment. The custody certificate, nominal roll and jail records further indicate that the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory throughout his incarceration. It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner was released on parole on three occasions, and on each occasion his conduct remained satisfactory and he surrendered before the authorities within the stipulated time. 14. It is also borne out from the record that upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, an opinion was sought from the learned Presiding Judge. The learned Presiding Judge, vide communication/memo dated 02.01.2025, expressed no objection to the grant of remission of sentence to the petitioner. The record further reveals that the petitioner's application for premature release was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent along with the nominal roll and other relevant documents, wherein the Jail Superintendent also recommended the petitioner's release, recording that his conduct in jail had remained satisfactory. It is further evident that the petitioner was released on parole on three occasions, and there is no allegation of misuse of liberty or violation of any parole condition. On each such occasion, the petitioner surrendered before the authorities within the prescribed time. 15. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for premature release/remission by the State Government vide order dated 05.01.2026 is sustainable in law. 8 16. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The amended Rule contemplates consideration of the case of an eligible life convict by the State Sentence Review Board, which is required to undertake an enquiry on the parameters prescribed under sub-rule (4) and consider all relevant aspects under sub-rule (7), including the opinion of the sentencing Court, the report of the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, the jail report regarding the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner, and other relevant circumstances having a bearing on his premature release. The Rule further provides that although the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation of the Board, any order rejecting the claim for premature release must disclose reasonable and logical reasons reflecting due application of mind. 17. The law relating to premature release and remission is no longer res integra. In Laxman Naskar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering a case for premature release, the competent authority is required to examine relevant factors, including the character of the offence, the conduct of the prisoner during incarceration, the possibility of his reverting to criminal habits or instigating others to commit offences, the potential for his reformation and rehabilitation, and whether his continued incarceration serves any useful purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the opinions of local residents, witnesses, or other authorities cannot, by themselves, be determinative of the issue, and that due weight must be accorded to the prisoner's conduct in jail and the reports indicating his reformation while considering his claim for premature release. 9 18. 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. 19. Upon careful scrutiny of the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, this Court finds that the petitioner's claim for premature release has been rejected principally on the ground that his release would have a negative impact on society and on the basis of the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. However, the impugned order does not reflect any meaningful consideration of several relevant circumstances, namely, the petitioner's long period of incarceration, his satisfactory conduct in jail, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent, the fact that he was released on parole on three occasions without any adverse incident, and his overall conduct during imprisonment. 20. The gravity of the offence is undoubtedly a relevant consideration in deciding a claim for premature release, it cannot be the sole basis for rejecting such a claim. Once a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration under the applicable Rules, the competent authority is required to undertake a holistic assessment of all relevant factors prescribed under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, including the prisoner's conduct, prospects of reformation and 10 rehabilitation, and other relevant materials. The impugned order does not disclose why the favourable materials available on record were found insufficient or how the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police outweighed the positive indicators of the petitioner's reform. 21. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that three co-accused, namely, Deepak Bai, Anand Das Patre and Sushila Bai Patre, who were convicted in the same Sessions Case under similar circumstances, have already been granted the benefit of remission by the State Government vide order dated 05.01.2026 and have been released. Though the principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically, it nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance which ought to have been considered by the competent authority while evaluating the petitioner's claim. 22. The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. Long incarceration coupled with satisfactory conduct, successful release on parole without misuse of liberty, and demonstrable signs of reformation are significant considerations which cannot be ignored. The object of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 is to ensure that a prisoner who has undergone substantial incarceration and has exhibited signs of reformation receives fair, objective and meaningful consideration for reintegration into society. 23. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned decision as contemplated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The order is cryptic in nature and does not demonstrate due 11 consideration of the relevant statutory factors or proper application of mind. The rejection of the petitioner's claim merely on the basis of the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, without assigning cogent and logical reasons, renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. 24. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release/remission is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if now required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual terms and conditions may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika