1 CGHC010149002026 2026:CGHC:36782-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 211 of 2026 T Satish S/o T. Ramarao Aged About 42 Years R/o Indira Nagar, Charoda, Bhilai-03, District-Durg (C.G.), Presently Lodged In Jagdalpur Central Jail Bastar (C.G.) since In Jail Through His Friend Avinash Pratap Singh, S/o Brij Bhanu Singh, Presently Aged About 52 Years, R/o S.M. 57, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... 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 Headquarters, Sector-19, Nqva Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur(C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent, Jagdalpur Central Jail, District-Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Collector, Durg District-Durg (C.G.) 5 - Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Aditi Shinghvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.19 10:16:51 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18 .08 .2026 1. Heard Mr.Aditi Shinghvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya 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 05.1.2026 (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. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing the death of one Manoj Singh in connection with a money dispute. By judgment dated 22.01.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, in Sessions Case No.119/2011, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence were upheld by this Court in CRA No.190/2014, vide judgment dated 28.02.2023. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2024 in SLP (Criminal) Diary No.35515/2024. 3 4. The petitioner has been in custody since 16.02.2011 and is presently serving his life sentence at Central Jail, Jagdalpur. As pleaded, as on 23.06.2025, he had undergone more than 19 years, 07 months and 15 days of imprisonment including remission, out of which his actual period of incarceration was stated to be 14 years, 04 months and 06 days. The petitioner claims that, on account of the period undergone and remission earned, he became eligible for consideration of his case for premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 5. Upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release, an opinion of the Presiding Judge was sought. The learned Presiding Judge, vide order dated 18.06.2025, expressed that there was no objection if remission of sentence was granted to the petitioner. The said order has been placed on record as Annexure P/2. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for premature release before the Jail Superintendent on 21.06.2025. The Jail Superintendent forwarded the said application, along with the nominal roll, Form-A and other relevant documents, to the District Magistrate, Durg, vide letter dated 24.06.2025, for consideration and opinion in accordance with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 6. From the nominal roll and the other documents placed on record, it appears that the Jail Superintendent had recommended the release of the petitioner. The jail authorities also recorded that the petitioner had not earlier been released on parole. Though certain adverse incidents relating to possession of a mobile phone and blade inside the jail were recorded in the years 2015 and 2017, there is no material placed before 4 this Court to demonstrate any subsequent adverse conduct of the petitioner. The character and conduct certificate also forms part of the record. The petitioner’s case was thereafter considered by the competent authorities. However, by the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, his application for premature release was rejected principally on the ground of the gravity of the offence, the adverse opinion/report of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Durg, and the previous conduct/record of the petitioner inside the jail. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order does not disclose proper consideration of the various parameters mandated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, including the opinion of the Court, jail authorities' report regarding conduct and behaviour, the period of incarceration undergone, the possibility of reformation and reintegration, and the other relevant considerations prescribed under the Rules. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 is arbitrary, non-speaking and suffers from non- application of mind. It is contended that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of his life sentence and has become eligible for consideration of premature release under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Presiding Judge has expressed no objection to grant of remission and the jail authorities have also recommended the petitioner for release. The petitioner has otherwise maintained satisfactory conduct in jail and there is no recent adverse conduct warranting rejection of his claim. It is 5 submitted that under Rule 358(4), the State Sentence Review Board is required to consider the various prescribed parameters, one of which is the opinion/report of the Collector and the Superintendent of Police. Such opinion is only one of the relevant considerations and cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative of the petitioner's claim. 9. Learned counsel further submits that Rule 358(7)(iii) requires consideration of all relevant aspects, including the opinion of the Court, report of the Collector and the jail report regarding the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner. Further, under Rule 358(7)(vii), where the recommendation is rejected, the State Government is required to record reasonable and logical reasons. It is argued that the impugned order merely refers to the gravity of the offence and the adverse opinion of the district authorities and does not demonstrate any meaningful consideration of the positive material available on record, particularly the opinion of the sentencing Court, the recommendation of the jail authorities, the period of incarceration undergone and the subsequent conduct of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel also submits that the mere gravity of the offence cannot constitute the sole basis for rejection of premature release after the petitioner has become eligible for consideration under the applicable Rules. The competent authority is required to examine whether the prisoner has reformed, his conduct during incarceration, the likelihood of his reverting to criminal activities after release and the effect of his release on society. It is also contended that the authorities failed to undertake the relevant tests contemplated under the Prison Rules and 6 failed to call for or consider an appropriate report concerning the petitioner's behaviour and the likely impact of his release upon society. Thus, relevant material has been ignored while irrelevant or insufficient considerations have been given undue weight. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of 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, to contend that although remission/premature release is discretionary, such discretion has to be exercised fairly, reasonably and upon consideration of relevant factors. An order founded upon irrelevant considerations, non- application of mind or absence of reasons is amenable to judicial review. Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 deserves to be quashed and the petitioner ought to be granted the benefit of premature release in accordance with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 11. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents opposes the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the serious offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The gravity and nature of the offence are relevant considerations while deciding an application for premature release. Learned State counsel submits that premature release/remission is not a matter of right and mere completion of the qualifying period does not automatically confer a right upon a life convict 7 to be released. The competent authority is required to assess the overall circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the conduct of the prisoner and the possible effect of his release upon society. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the competent authorities and the State Sentence Review mechanism, and the adverse opinion/report of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Durg, was taken into consideration. The authorities were justified in attaching due importance to the nature and gravity of the offence and the previous adverse incidents recorded against the petitioner inside the jail. 12. Learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are relevant inputs under Rule 358 and cannot be brushed aside merely because the jail authorities have given a favourable recommendation. It is contended that the decision is administrative in nature and the scope of judicial review is limited. It is therefore submitted that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's application and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, the documents placed on record and the impugned order dated 05.01.2026. 14. The question which arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for premature release is in accordance with the parameters prescribed under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, and whether the impugned order 8 reflects proper and meaningful consideration of the relevant materials available on record. 15. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing imprisonment for life. It is also not in dispute that he has undergone a substantial period of incarceration and has earned remission. The petitioner has thus become eligible for consideration of his case under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules. However, eligibility for consideration and actual release are distinct matters. The competent authority is required to exercise its discretion in accordance with the statutory scheme and upon consideration of all relevant factors. 16. Rule 358 contemplates consideration of various aspects before a decision is taken regarding premature release of a life convict. The opinion of the Collector and Superintendent of Police is undoubtedly a relevant consideration; however, it is only one of the factors forming part of the decision-making process. The Rule also requires consideration of the opinion of the Court and the report of the jail authorities concerning the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner, apart from the other factors prescribed therein. 17. In the present case, the learned Presiding Judge, vide order dated 18.06.2025, expressed no objection to grant of remission. The jail authorities have also recommended the petitioner's release. The material placed on record indicates that, except for certain incidents relating to possession of a mobile phone and blade in the years 2015 9 and 2017, no subsequent adverse conduct of the petitioner has been brought to the notice of this Court. The said incidents are admittedly old and the authorities were required to consider the petitioner's subsequent conduct and overall conduct during the long period of incarceration. The impugned order, however, does not disclose a proper consideration of these relevant factors. It principally proceeds on the gravity of the offence and the adverse opinion of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. While the nature and gravity of the offence are certainly relevant considerations, the same cannot be treated as an immutable or exclusive ground for rejection of a premature release application, particularly when the statutory scheme requires consideration of the prisoner's conduct, reformation and other relevant circumstances. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar (supra), has indicated the relevance of factors such as the impact of the offence on society, the likelihood of recurrence and the possibility of reformation of the prisoner while considering premature release. 19. Likewise, in Epuru Sudhakar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an order relating to remission is not immune from judicial review and may be interfered with where the decision is arbitrary, based on irrelevant considerations or suffers from non-application of mind. 20. In Jagdish (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also emphasized fair and consistent consideration of a prisoner's claim for remission in accordance with the applicable policy. 10 21. The power to grant remission is undoubtedly discretionary. Nevertheless, discretion vested in a statutory authority cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Where the applicable Rules prescribe relevant factors which are required to be considered, the decision-making authority must demonstrate that those factors have actually been considered. A brief order is not by itself invalid, but the order must disclose application of mind to the relevant material and must contain reasons sufficient to show why the claim has been rejected. 22. In the present case, the impugned order does not demonstrate that due weightage was given to the favourable opinion of the Presiding Judge, the recommendation of the jail authorities, the petitioner's long incarceration and his subsequent conduct. The adverse opinion of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police has been relied upon without the impugned order demonstrating consideration of the material basis and relevance of such adverse opinion vis-à-vis the other statutory parameters. 23. The reformative object underlying the scheme of premature release cannot also be lost sight of. The purpose of considering a prisoner's conduct and reformation is to ascertain whether continued incarceration is necessary having regard to the prisoner's present circumstances and the likelihood of his successful reintegration into society. Therefore, the decision cannot rest solely upon the original gravity of the offence while completely overlooking the subsequent conduct and the other relevant factors prescribed under the Rules. 11 24. In the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 does not reflect proper application of mind to the relevant considerations mandated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The decision-making process is therefore vitiated by non-consideration of relevant material and cannot be sustained. 25. Once the petitioner had become eligible for consideration under the applicable Rules, his claim was required to be considered objectively and in accordance with the statutory parameters. The favourable opinion of the Court and the recommendation of the jail authorities could not have been ignored without assigning cogent reasons. Similarly, the adverse report of the district authorities could not, by itself, conclude the matter without consideration of the other factors required under Rule 358. 26. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the competent authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the Petitioner and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu