1 CGHC010295112026 2026:CGHC:33143-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 430 of 2026 Pawan Nishad S/o Ramlal Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Mohbhattha Para, Police Station Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) Presently Lodged In Raipur Central Jail Raipur (C.G.) Since In Jail Through His Sister Rekha Nishad W/o Rajesh Nishad Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Saddu Tehsil- Tilda Police Station District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... 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 Head Quarters Sector -19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent Raipur Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.01 13:20:43 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.07.2026 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 11.05.2026 (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 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in continuous custody since 30.03.2010 pursuant to his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated 26.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara in Sessions Trial No. 24/2010, which conviction has been affirmed by this Court in CRA No. 438/2012 as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has completed approximately 16 years and 2 months of actual imprisonment and more than 20 years including remission, 3 thereby becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It is further submitted that the learned Presiding Judge, vide memo dated 25.11.2024, recommended grant of remission after recording that the petitioner had earned regular remissions on account of his good conduct and that there was no material to deny him such benefit. It is contended that the application for premature release was thereafter processed by the jail authorities and forwarded to the competent authorities, and even the District Magistrate, Raipur and the Superintendent of Police, Raipur expressed no objection to the petitioner’s premature release. Despite all statutory authorities rendering favourable opinions, the State Government, by the impugned order dated 11.05.2026, rejected the petitioner’s claim solely on the ground that the offence was serious in nature. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order passed without considering the mandatory factors prescribed under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and without assigning reasonable or logical reasons as required under the Rules. It is argued that the respondents have failed to consider the petitioner’s satisfactory jail conduct, the favourable reports of the concerned authorities, and the long period of incarceration already undergone, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the 4 Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated 26.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 24/2010, which conviction has been affirmed by this Court in CRA No. 438/2012 and thereafter by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that although the petitioner has undergone the requisite period of incarceration, the competent authority, upon due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, has rejected his claim for premature release vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2026. Learned State counsel contends that the petitioner was convicted for committing the heinous offence of murdering his wife by setting her ablaze and, considering the gravity and nature of the offence, the State Government found the petitioner not entitled to the benefit of premature release. It is further submitted that the power under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is discretionary in nature and remission or premature release cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stands convicted pursuant to the judgment dated 26.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 24/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian 5 Penal Code, 1860, which conviction has been affirmed by this Court in CRA No. 438/2012 as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in continuous custody since 30.03.2010 and has completed approximately 16 years, 2 months and 26 days of actual imprisonment as on 24.06.2026, besides earning remission in accordance with the Rules. The material placed on record further reveals that the petitioner has maintained satisfactory conduct in jail and no adverse report regarding his conduct has been placed before this Court. 7. It is further evident from the record that the process for consideration of the petitioner’s premature release was duly initiated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The learned Presiding Judge, vide Memo dated 25.11.2024, recommended grant of remission after recording that the petitioner had earned regular remissions on account of his good conduct and that there was no material warranting denial of such benefit. The record further discloses that the District Magistrate, Raipur and the Superintendent of Police, Raipur also expressed no objection to the petitioner’s premature release. However, despite such favourable recommendations, the State Government rejected the petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 solely on the ground that the offence committed by him was serious in nature. 8. This Court has carefully perused the material available on record. The impugned order merely refers to the gravity of the offence and does not disclose any consideration of the mandatory factors prescribed 6 under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The order is conspicuously silent regarding the petitioner’s long period of incarceration, satisfactory jail conduct, favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, or the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation. The decision-making process, therefore, falls short of the requirement of fairness, reasonableness and application of mind. 9. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the power of remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a statutory power required to be exercised in accordance with established principles and the applicable remission policy. Though remission cannot be claimed as an absolute right, every eligible convict possesses a right to fair, objective and non-arbitrary consideration of his case by the competent authority. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, and State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 has consistently held that while exercising powers relating to remission or premature release, the authorities are required to consider relevant factors, apply the applicable policy uniformly and avoid arbitrary or irrelevant considerations. Equally relevant are the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 78/2017 (Amarnath Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh), emphasizing that opinions under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. must not be 7 rendered mechanically and that remission matters are required to be dealt with in a fair and reasoned manner. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone more than 16 years of incarceration and there is nothing on record to indicate any adverse conduct during his imprisonment. The record further reveals that the petitioner’s case was required to be examined in the light of the applicable remission policy and the statutory framework. However, the relevant considerations governing remission do not appear to have been fully addressed while dealing with the petitioner’s claim. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has undergone the requisite period of incarceration and all the statutory authorities, including the learned Presiding Judge, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, have rendered favourable opinions recommending his premature release. The impugned order, however, rejects the petitioner’s claim solely on the basis of the gravity of the offence without assigning any reasonable or logical reasons as required under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. Such an order cannot be sustained in law. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order 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 8 conditions a may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet