1 CGHC010291342026 2026:CGHC:32806-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 424 of 2026 Ajit Bada S/o Ramlal Bada Aged About 55 Years Convicted Prisoner No 372/49 R/o Turga Sanchar Ghatpara Police Station Lakhanpur District- Surguja (C.G.) At Present Central Jail Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Home (Jail) Depart- ment Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General of Police (Jail) Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent of Jail Central Jail Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. R.V. Ram Rajwade, 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 .2026 1 Heard Mr. R.V. Ram Rajwade, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 following prayers: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of remission/ premature release to the petitioner and take consequential steps for releasing him forthwith, in accordance with statutory provisions of Section 432 of CrPC Section 473 of the BNSS read with Rule 358 and 359 of the Rules, 1968. 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3 Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 rejecting the Petitioner's claim for premature release/remission is arbitrary, cryptic and unsustainable in law, having been passed without due application of mind to the relevant materials placed on record. It is contended that the Petitioner has remained in custody since 03.11.2009 and has undergone more than 16 years of actual imprisonment and over 21 years of sentence including remission earned, thereby satisfying the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 for consideration of premature release. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner's conduct throughout his incarceration has remained satisfactory, which is evident from the repeated recommendations made by the Jail Authorities vide communications dated 26.11.2024, 31.07.2025 and 31.12.2025 recommending his release on remission. It is further submitted that the 3 learned Trial Court, which convicted the Petitioner, also furnished a 'No Objection' vide memo dated 30.11.2024 for the Petitioner's premature release after considering all relevant aspects. 4 Learned counsel further submits that despite the favourable recommendations of the Jail Authorities and the Court of conviction, the State Government has rejected the Petitioner's application solely on the basis of the opinions furnished by the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Surguja, which merely state that it is not appropriate to release the Petitioner, without disclosing any objective material or assigning cogent reasons in support thereof. It is contended that the reports of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police are vague, unsupported by any relevant material and cannot, by themselves, constitute the sole basis for denying the benefit of premature release. The competent authority was required to independently evaluate all relevant factors, including the Petitioner's conduct in prison, the period of incarceration already undergone, the recommendations of the Jail Authorities and the Court of conviction, the likelihood of reformation and rehabilitation, and the object sought to be achieved by the remission policy. However, the impugned order demonstrates complete non-application of mind, as none of these relevant considerations have been adverted to. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 deserves to be quashed and set aside as being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4 5 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. 6 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 passed by Respondent No. 1 rejecting the Petitioner's application for premature release/remission is not sustainable in law. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has been in custody since 03.11.2009 and has undergone more than 16 years of actual incarceration and more than 21 years of sentence including remission earned. Thus, the Petitioner has completed the requisite period of imprisonment for consideration of his case for premature release under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 7 The record further reveals that the conduct of the Petitioner during the period of incarceration has been found satisfactory. The Jail Authorities, after due consideration of the Petitioner's conduct and other relevant factors, have repeatedly recommended his premature release vide communications dated 26.11.2024, 31.07.2025 and 31.12.2025. The Court of conviction has also granted its no objection for release of the Petitioner vide memo dated 30.11.2024. However, the State Government, while passing the impugned order, has rejected the Petitioner's claim solely on the basis of the reports of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Surguja, without recording any independent reasons and without considering the 5 favourable recommendations of the Jail Authorities and the Court of conviction. 8 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 govern the exercise of power relating to remission and premature release. 9 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. 10 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 6 arbitrariness, mala fides, non-application of mind or consideration of irrelevant materials. 11 Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 suffers from non-application of mind and has been passed in a mechanical manner. The State Government has failed to assign any cogent reason for rejecting the Petitioner's claim despite the favourable reports of the Jail Authorities and the Court of conviction. The mere opinion expressed by the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, without any supporting material indicating that the Petitioner's release would adversely affect public interest or that there is any likelihood of repetition of offence, cannot be made the sole basis for rejection of the application for premature release. 12 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of relief. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to release the Petitioner forthwith on premature release/remission, 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