1 CGHC010101592026 2026:CGHC:29293-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 142 of 2026 Manoj Agrawal S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged About 56 Years R/o Jagmal Chowk Bilaspur, Police Station- City Kotwali Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter- Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.15 19:55:59 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set-aside the order dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued/passed by the respondent no.2; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner remission under 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023/432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and to release the petitioner by granting remission of rest part of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Learned Session Judge Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 169/2010; and 3 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.169/2010, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302 and 302/149 IPC, besides other sentences, all of which were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner is presently lodged in the Central Jail, Bilaspur. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner remained in custody from 09.06.2010 to 02.04.2016, 18.04.2016 to 02.07.2020, 31.01.2021 to 05.03.2021 and has been continuously in custody since 16.03.2021. It is submitted that the petitioner has undergone about 15 years of actual imprisonment and, as on 04.02.2025, had earned remission of 3 years, 5 months and 25 days, thereby completing more than 18 years of sentence including earned remission. It is further submitted that the petitioner has maintained good conduct throughout his incarceration and has also been released on parole on several occasions without any complaint regarding misuse of liberty. 5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(Cr.) No.327 of 2025, complaining of non- 4 consideration of his case for premature release. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19.06.2025 in terms of the order passed by this Court in Jay Jaiswal @ Gudda Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.(Cr.) No.483 of 2024), granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application for premature release in accordance with the amended provisions of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's son submitted an application dated 25.06.2025 and the petitioner also submitted an application from jail seeking remission of the remaining part of his sentence. 6. Learned counsel further submits that while processing the petitioner's case, the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide communication dated 05.07.2025, expressed no objection to the petitioner's premature release and observed that it would be appropriate to grant such benefit. Likewise, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, and the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, submitted favourable reports recommending the petitioner's premature release. Despite these recommendations, the respondent-State, by the impugned order dated 12.12.2025, rejected the petitioner's claim for premature release by invoking Rule 358(6)(ix) read with Rule 358(7) (viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, holding that the petitioner had been convicted in two or more cases of murder and, therefore, would become eligible for consideration only after completion of 20 years of actual imprisonment. Learned counsel submits that the said conclusion is wholly erroneous, inasmuch as the petitioner has been convicted in only one Sessions Trial arising out of a single criminal 5 case, though two life sentences were awarded in the same judgment. It is contended that the expression "convicted in two or more cases of murder" occurring in Rule 358(6)(ix) cannot be construed to include a conviction recorded in one Sessions Trial merely because more than one person died in the same occurrence. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-State has taken inconsistent stands. In the earlier proceedings before this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No.327 of 2025, the State itself submitted that after the amendment of Rule 358, the petitioner's case could be considered under the amended Rules upon submission of a fresh application. However, after the petitioner completed the entire statutory process and obtained favourable recommendations from all the competent authorities, the State rejected his claim by invoking Rule 358(6)(ix), which is ex facie inapplicable to his case. It is further submitted that although the respondents have sought to justify the impugned order in the return by referring to the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the alleged gravity of the offence, the impugned order itself does not disclose any independent consideration of the petitioner's post-conviction conduct, earned remission, repeated parole without any adverse incident, favourable recommendations of the learned Sessions Judge, the Jail Superintendent, the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, or the settled principles governing premature release. The reasons sought to be assigned for the first time in the return cannot be permitted to supplement the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel submits that the object of premature release is 6 founded on the reformative theory of punishment and that the petitioner's conduct during incarceration unmistakably demonstrates his reformation. It is submitted that the State Sentence Review Board assigned no cogent reasons for disagreeing with the unanimous favourable recommendations of the field authorities and that the rejection of the petitioner's claim is based solely on the alleged heinousness of the offence and an erroneous interpretation of Rule 358(6)(ix). Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, Rajkumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 9 SCC 598, and Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 865, learned counsel submits that although remission cannot be claimed as a matter of right, every eligible convict has a valuable legal right to fair, objective and non-arbitrary consideration of his case in accordance with the governing statutory rules and settled principles of law. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, suffers from non- application of mind, and deserves to be quashed. 9. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner has no vested or enforceable right to claim premature release merely because he has undergone the requisite period of imprisonment. It was contended that the petitioner was convicted for serious offences including double murder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment twice. Learned State counsel further submitted that the petitioner's case 7 was duly considered by the State Sentence Review Board, which, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the petitioner's release adversely affecting society, recommended against his premature release. The State Government, after considering the said recommendation and the provisions of Rules 358(6)(ix) and 358(7) (viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, rejected the petitioner's application by order dated 12.12.2025. It was lastly submitted that remission or premature release is not a matter of right but lies within the discretion of the State Government to be exercised in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 11. The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, vide judgment dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.169/2010. The learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302 and 302/149 IPC, besides other sentences, all of which were directed to run concurrently. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner applied for premature release after undergoing the requisite period of incarceration and that favourable recommendations were made by the learned Sessions Judge, the Jail Superintendent, the Superintendent of Police 8 and the District Magistrate. However, by the impugned order dated 12.12.2025, the State Government rejected the petitioner's claim for premature release by invoking Rules 358(6)(ix) and 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, holding that the petitioner was convicted in two or more cases of murder and, therefore, his case could be considered only after completion of 20 years of actual imprisonment. 12. The record establishes that the petitioner remained in custody during different spells from 09.06.2010 onwards and, as on the date of consideration of his case, had undergone about 15 years of actual imprisonment. It is further borne out from the record that, as on 04.02.2025, the petitioner had earned remission of 3 years, 5 months and 25 days and, consequently, had completed more than 18 years of imprisonment including earned remission. The record further indicates that the petitioner's conduct in jail remained satisfactory and that he had also availed parole on several occasions without any adverse complaint. His case was, accordingly, processed by the competent authorities for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. 13. Additionally, the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide communication dated 05.07.2025, expressed no objection to the petitioner's premature release and opined that it would be appropriate to grant him the benefit of remission. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, and the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, also recommended the petitioner's case for premature release in accordance with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, for 9 consideration by the competent authority. 14. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 12.12.2025, whereby the petitioner's application for premature release has been rejected by invoking Rules 358(6)(ix) and 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, is legally sustainable. 15. Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, envisages consideration of a prisoner's case for premature release on the basis of the reports and recommendations of the competent authorities, including the learned Sessions Judge, the Jail Superintendent, the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate and the State Sentence Review Board. The power vested in the State Government under Rule 358(7)(viii) is required to be exercised upon due consideration of all relevant circumstances of the case, and any decision rejecting a claim for premature release must be supported by cogent reasons and be in conformity with the applicable statutory provisions. 16. The law governing premature release is well settled. 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, inter alia, whether the prisoner has undergone reformation, whether there is any likelihood of recurrence of crime, whether any useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration, and the socio- economic condition of the prisoner's family. It has been held that the decision must be based on relevant and objective considerations and 10 cannot rest solely on the gravity or heinousness of the offence. 17. In Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the power of remission vests in the executive, its exercise is amenable to judicial review where the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, unreasonable or based on irrelevant considerations. The said principle applies with equal force to the exercise of statutory power under the remission rules. Likewise, in Jagdish (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although premature release is not a matter of right, every eligible convict has a legal right to have his case considered fairly, objectively and in accordance with the applicable remission policy. 18. Upon careful consideration of the impugned order dated 12.12.2025, this Court finds that the petitioner's application for premature release has been rejected primarily on the premise that the petitioner is covered by Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, as also on the basis of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. However, the impugned order does not reflect any independent consideration of the favourable recommendations made by the learned Sessions Judge, the Jail Superintendent, the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, the petitioner's satisfactory conduct in jail, his parole record, the period of incarceration already undergone, or the other relevant factors governing premature release. The order, therefore, appears to have been passed mechanically, without due application of mind to the relevant material available on record. 11 19. While the nature and gravity of the offence are undoubtedly relevant considerations in deciding a claim for premature release, they cannot constitute the sole basis for rejecting such a claim, particularly where the applicable statutory rules require consideration of several other relevant factors. The competent authority is under an obligation to objectively examine the prisoner's conduct during incarceration, the favourable recommendations of the learned Sessions Judge, the Jail Superintendent, the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, the period of imprisonment already undergone, the prisoner's parole record and the prospects of reformation and rehabilitation. In the present case, the impugned order does not disclose any reason as to why these favourable circumstances were ignored or why the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board alone was preferred. The order, therefore, fails to demonstrate a holistic and objective consideration of the petitioner's case as contemplated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. 20. This Court also finds that the petitioner had specifically contended that he was convicted in only one Sessions Trial, namely, Sessions Trial No.169/2010, arising out of a single criminal case and, therefore, Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, which applies to prisoners convicted in two or more cases of murder, was not attracted to his case. However, the respondents proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had committed "double murder" and, therefore, was ineligible for consideration of premature release before completion of 20 years of actual imprisonment, without recording any finding as to how 12 the petitioner's conviction in a single Sessions Trial could be construed as a conviction in two or more cases of murder within the meaning of Rule 358(6)(ix). The authorities, therefore, failed to examine the petitioner's case on a proper interpretation of the statutory provision, thereby rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. 21. The fundamental philosophy underlying premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. A convict who has undergone substantial incarceration, maintained satisfactory conduct in prison, earned remission, and demonstrated the potential for reformation is entitled to fair, objective and meaningful consideration of his case in accordance with the governing statutory provisions. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail, was released on parole on several occasions without any adverse incident, and has received favourable recommendations from the competent authorities. These relevant considerations, however, do not appear to have received due consideration while passing the impugned order. 22. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned and objective decision under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. The rejection of the petitioner's claim is founded on an erroneous application of Rule 358(6)(ix) and does not reflect due consideration of the relevant factors governing premature release. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. 13 23. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 12.12.2025 rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner, having been convicted in a single Sessions Trial arising out of one criminal case, cannot be treated as a prisoner convicted in two or more cases of murder so as to attract the provisions of Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. Consequently, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of premature release/remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case, subject to compliance with the applicable terms and conditions prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved