1 CGHC010290852026 2026:CGHC:32778-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 427 of 2026 Hemla Budhu S/o Nanga Aged About 55 Years R/o Gangaloor, Dubalipara P. S. Gangaloor District - Bijapur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Secretary Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director General of Jail and Correctional Servicers, Headquarters, Jail And Correctional Services, Sector- 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur 492002 4 - Superintendent of Jail Central Jail Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G. ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Saumya 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 30 . 07 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy 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 That this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call for the records of the case from the Respondents. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 05/01/2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.1/State Government. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to release Petitioner granting remission under the provisions of section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (Section 432 Of Cr.P.C.). 10.4 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 rejecting the Petitioner's claim for premature release/remission is arbitrary, mechanical, and unsustainable in law, having been passed without proper consideration of the relevant materials placed on record. It is contended that the Petitioner has remained in custody since 02.07.2010 and has undergone more than 19 years and 9 months of incarceration, including the period of remission, thereby fulfilling the eligibility criteria for consideration of premature release under the applicable remission policy. Learned counsel submits that during the entire period of incarceration, the Petitioner's conduct 3 has remained satisfactory and unblemished, which is evident from the report submitted by the Jail Superintendent recommending his release on remission. It is further submitted that, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the Superintendent of Central Jail sought the opinion of the Court of conviction, and the learned Sessions Judge, Dantewada, after considering the Petitioner's conduct and other relevant factors, made a positive recommendation in favour of the Petitioner's premature release vide order dated 24.04.2025. 4. Learned counsel further submits that despite the favourable recommendations of both the Jail Authorities and the Court of conviction, the State Government has rejected the Petitioner's application solely on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, without assigning any independent reasons or disclosing the material on the basis of which such adverse recommendation was made. It is contended that the impugned order reflects complete non-application of mind and is a cryptic order devoid of reasons, rendering it arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that while considering a case for remission, the competent authority is required to objectively evaluate all relevant factors, including the nature of the offence, the period of incarceration already undergone, the conduct and reformation of the convict, the likelihood of his re-assimilation into society, and the recommendations of the Jail Authorities and the Court of conviction. However, none of these relevant considerations have been adverted to in the impugned order. 4 5. Learned counsel argues that the object of remission is to encourage reformation and rehabilitation of convicts, and once the competent authorities have found the Petitioner's conduct to be satisfactory and the Court of conviction has also recommended his release, the State Government could not have rejected the Petitioner's claim by merely relying upon the opinion of the State Punishment Review Board without recording independent reasons. Such an approach defeats the very purpose of the remission policy and amounts to an arbitrary exercise of executive power. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 be quashed and the matter be remitted to the State Government for fresh consideration of the Petitioner's claim for premature release/remission in accordance with law, after taking into account all relevant materials and recommendations within a time-bound period. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petitioner's application for remission and submits that the authorities have rightly rejected the prayer for grant of remission. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 rejecting the Petitioner's claim for premature release/remission is unsustainable in law. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has remained in custody since 02.07.2010 and has undergone the requisite period of incarceration prescribed under the applicable remission policy. The record further reveals that the conduct 5 of the Petitioner throughout his incarceration has been consistently found to be satisfactory by the Jail Authorities, who have recommended his premature release. The Court of conviction, namely, the learned Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, has also, after considering the Petitioner's conduct and all relevant circumstances, furnished a positive recommendation in favour of his premature release vide order dated 24.04.2025. 8. The only reason assigned by the State Government for rejecting the Petitioner's application is the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board. The impugned order neither discloses any independent application of mind nor records any reasons as to why the favourable recommendations of the Jail Authorities and the Court of conviction have been discarded. Such an order, founded solely upon the opinion of the Review Board without independent evaluation of the relevant factors, is arbitrary and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595, has held that while considering premature release of a life convict, the competent authority is required to examine, inter alia, whether the offence affects society at large, whether there is any likelihood of repetition of the offence, whether the convict has lost the potentiality to commit crime, whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continued incarceration, and the socio-economic condition of the convict's family. These parameters have consistently been held to 6 govern the exercise of power relating to remission and premature release. 10. In State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the power of remission has to be exercised fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the applicable policy, and that the competent authority is under an obligation to objectively consider the case of the convict by taking into account all relevant materials. The Court further emphasized that the benefit of a remission policy cannot be denied by adopting an arbitrary or mechanical approach. 11. Likewise, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the power relating to remission is an executive function, its exercise is subject to judicial review where the decision suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides, non-application of mind or consideration of irrelevant materials. 12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The record unmistakably demonstrates that the Petitioner's conduct in prison has been satisfactory, the Jail Authorities have recommended his release, and the Court of conviction has also opined in favour of his premature release. There is nothing on record to indicate that the competent authority independently considered the relevant factors laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court before rejecting the Petitioner's claim. The impugned 7 order, therefore, suffers from patent non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside. 13. In the peculiar facts of the present case, where the Petitioner has already undergone the requisite period of incarceration, has earned favourable recommendations from all the statutory authorities concerned except the Review Board, and no legally sustainable reason has been assigned for denying him the benefit of premature release, this Court is of the opinion that remanding the matter for fresh consideration would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong the Petitioner's incarceration. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to release the Petitioner forthwith, if his custody is not required in connection with any other criminal case, after completing all necessary formalities in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra