1 CGHC010270712026 2026:CGHC:31109-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 408 of 2026 1 - Ramnaresh S/o Chhotelal Kewat Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Gullidand, Police Station Marwahi, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. (Prisoner No. 4202/96, Central Jail Bilaspur) 2 - Vishwanath Singh S/o Dhyan Singh Paw Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Gullidand, Police Station Marwahi, District- Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, C.G. (Prisoner No. 4204/96, Central Jail Bilaspur) 3 - Ranjeet Kewat S/o Gangaram Kewat Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Gullidand, Police Station Marwahi, District- Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, C.G. (Prisoner No. 4203/96, Central Jail Bilaspur) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Jail, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Jail and Correctional Services Chhattisgarh Through The Director General Prisons, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 3 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 . 07 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing and setting aside the impugned orders (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.1 : Petitioner Impugned Order Details Date of Order Ramnaresh Order No. LAW-42015 / 4485/2025 / (JAIL) – 3 15.01.2026 Vishwanath Singh Order No. LAW-42015 / 4467/2025 / (JAIL) – 3 15.01.2026 Ranjeet Kewat Order No. LAW-42015 / 3691/2025 / (JAIL) – 3 02.02.2026 10.2 Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to reconsider and decide the remission of the Petitioners afresh, in accordance with law and shall, while deciding the remission applications, consider the earned remission of the Petitioners and compute the total sentence served inclusive thereof. 10.3 To grant any other writ, order, relief in favour of the Petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 449, 366(2), 302/34 of IPC and they have been in continuous custody since 13.08.2026 and as son date have completed more than 19 years and 10 months of actual incarceration and during their incarceration, the petitioners have maintained good conduce and have earned substantial remission and accordingly, petitioner Ramnaresh has served total sentence of 25 years, 3 months & 6 days including remission; petitioner Vishwanath 3 Singh has served total sentence of 25 years, 11 months & 13 days including remission and petitioner Ranjeet Kewant has served total sentence of 25 years, 4 months & 24 days including remission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the aforesaid impugned order passed by the rejecting the petitioner's application for premature release is wholly arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It is further submitted that throughout their incarceration, the petitioners have maintained exemplary conduct in prison, have not been involved in any jail offence, and have actively participated in reformative activities, thereby demonstrating genuine reformation and rehabilitation. It is contended that the object of imprisonment is not merely punitive but also reformative, and once a convict has undergone a substantial period of sentence with satisfactory conduct, his case is required to be considered for premature release in accordance with the applicable remission policy and statutory guidelines. The continued incarceration of the Petitioners, despite completion of the requisite qualifying period and satisfactory jail conduct, is arbitrary and contrary to the principles governing premature release. It is, therefore, prayed that the Respondents be directed to consider the cases of the Petitioners for premature release strictly in accordance with the applicable remission policy, the relevant statutory provisions, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and to release them forthwith if they are otherwise found eligible. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition 4 and submits that the Petitioners have been convicted for the grave and heinous offences punishable under Sections 449, 366(2), and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that although the Petitioners have undergone a substantial period of incarceration and have earned remission in accordance with the applicable rules, they do not acquire an indefeasible or vested right to premature release merely on completion of the qualifying period of sentence. He further submitted that the grant of premature release is governed by the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, and every case is required to be examined strictly in accordance with the eligibility criteria and the restrictions contained therein. Learned State counsel further submits that Rule 358(6)(v) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 specifically excludes from the benefit of premature release those prisoners who have been convicted of offences involving exceptional brutality, heinous crimes, or offences falling within the category prescribed under the said Rule and it further provided that their case will be placed for consideration before the State Sentence Review Board after completion of actual sentence of 20 years, as such, there is no illegality or 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The undisputed facts reveal that the Petitioners stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 366(2) and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of consideration of their applications, the Petitioners had undergone about 5 19 years and 10 months of actual imprisonment, though with remission they have completed more than 25 years of sentence. The grievance of the Petitioners is that despite their satisfactory jail conduct and the remission earned by them, their claim for premature release has been rejected. 8. The contention, however, cannot be accepted. It is well settled that remission does not automatically entitle a convict to premature release and a prisoner does not acquire any vested or indefeasible right to be released merely because he has undergone the qualifying period of sentence including remission. Premature release is governed by the statutory policy in force and is subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein. The competent authority is required to examine the case of a convict strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and the relevant policy. 9. A perusal of Rule 358(6)(v) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 makes it evident that prisoners convicted of heinous offences falling within the category specified therein are to be considered by the State Sentence Review Board only after completion of 20 years of actual imprisonment. The Rule clearly contemplates actual incarceration and not the period inclusive of remission for the purpose of determining eligibility for placing the case before the Board. Since the Petitioners had not completed the mandatory period of 20 years of actual sentence on the date their cases were considered, the competent authority cannot be said to have committed any illegality in declining to recommend their premature release. 6 10. The reliance placed by the Petitioners on their satisfactory jail conduct and remission earned also does not advance their case. These are undoubtedly relevant considerations while considering a case for premature release; however, they arise only after the prisoner satisfies the threshold eligibility prescribed under the statutory Rules. Until the mandatory requirement of actual imprisonment stipulated under Rule 358(6)(v) is fulfilled, no enforceable right accrues in favour of the Petitioners to seek consideration by the State Sentence Review Board. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that premature release is a matter of policy and statutory regulation and not a matter of right. In State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Supreme Court held that although a convict has a right to have his case considered in accordance with the applicable remission policy, he has no vested right to claim premature release. Similarly, in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, (2016) 7 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench reiterated that remission or premature release is governed by the applicable statutory framework and policy and cannot be claimed as an absolute right by a convict. 12. In the present case, as the Petitioners had admittedly not completed 20 years of actual imprisonment, their cases were not ripe for consideration under Rule 358(6)(v) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. Consequently, this Court finds no arbitrariness, illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7 14. However, it is observed that upon completion of the mandatory period of actual imprisonment, it shall be open to the Petitioners to submit fresh applications seeking premature release. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra