1 CGHC010323032026 2026:CGHC:37528-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 497 of 2026 1 - Baban Ram S/o Late Shivbhajan Ram Chaudhary, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Sohagpur, Chauki Karanj, P.S. Jainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through- Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent of Jail Central Jail, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Collector and District Magistrate, Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police, District Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer, P.S- Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Lal Loniya, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.08.2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.08.24 16:55:18 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 10.04.2026 (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.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to his conviction for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and has remained in custody since 22.07.2010. The criminal appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court and the same has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has undergone approximately 16 years and 1 month of imprisonment and has earned regular remissions on account of his good conduct in jail. The petitioner, therefore, has become eligible for consideration of premature release/remission under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules. 3 Learned counsel further submits that, upon consideration of his case, the learned Presiding Judge expressed no objection to grant of remission in view of the petitioner's satisfactory conduct and the remissions earned by him. However, despite such favourable opinion, the competent authorities rejected the petitioner's claim primarily on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and on the basis of objections raised by certain persons of the locality and reports submitted by the police authorities, Senior Superintendent of Police and Collector, District Surajpur. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, cryptic and suffers from non-application of mind, as the respondent authorities have failed to consider the relevant factors, including the long period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, his conduct in prison, the regular remissions earned by him and the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge/trial Court. It is argued that the authorities have relied upon irrelevant considerations, particularly the objections of local persons and the gravity of the offence, while failing to record any specific finding that the release of the petitioner would be dangerous to public safety or that there is any likelihood of his reverting to criminal activities. Mere reference to the heinous nature of the offence, without assessing the petitioner's present conduct, reformation and prospects of rehabilitation, cannot constitute a valid and sufficient basis for rejection of his claim for premature release. Learned counsel places reliance upon the 4 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, and submits that the authorities are required to assess the present conduct, reformation and possibility of rehabilitation of the prisoner rather than merely relying upon the nature of the offence or apprehensions expressed by persons in the locality. It is therefore contended that the impugned order, being bereft of cogent reasons and having been passed without proper consideration of the relevant material, is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel accordingly prays that the respondent authorities be directed to prematurely release the petitioner, in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner along with other co-accused was convicted in S.T. No.370/2010 by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Surajpur vide order dated 31.01.2011 for offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for committing murder of deceased Sukhlal. It is submitted that the nature and seriousness of the offence constitute relevant considerations while examining the petitioner's claim for remission/premature release and that the competent authorities, after considering the reports received from the local police, Senior Superintendent of Police and Collector, District Surajpur, have found the petitioner unsuitable for grant of remission. Learned State counsel further submits that objections have been raised by persons from the locality and that, having 5 regard to the nature of the offence and the apprehension expressed by the local authorities, the petitioner's release would not be in the interest of public safety. It is contended that remission/premature release is not an absolute or vested right of a prisoner and that the opinion of the sentencing Court is recommendatory in nature and does not bind the competent authority. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that the competent authority has exercised its discretion on the basis of the material available on record and, there being no patent illegality or perversity in the decision-making process, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 6. At this juncture, it would also be apposite to refer to Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which contemplates consideration of premature release/remission of life convicts who have undergone the prescribed period of sentence, subject to evaluation of their conduct, possibility of reformation and suitability for reintegration into society. The underlying object of the said provision is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely punitive. In the present case, the petitioner has admittedly undergone substantial period of incarceration and his case was 6 duly recommended by the Jail Superintendent under prescribed Proforma ‘A’. It is further evident that the learned trial Court had also furnished favourable opinion/no objection in favour of the petitioner. Apart from a bald reference to the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, no adverse material has been brought on record by the respondents demonstrating unsatisfactory jail conduct, likelihood of repetition of offence or any circumstance disentitling the petitioner from consideration for remission. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner’s claim in a mechanical manner runs contrary to the statutory scheme as well as the reformative principles governing grant of premature release/remission. 7. It is well settled that though remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary, such discretion is required to be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 626, has held that while considering premature release/remission, the competent authority is required to examine factors such as whether the offence affects society at large, the likelihood of recurrence of crime, whether the convict has lost the propensity to commit offence, and whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continued incarceration. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that orders relating to 7 remission are amenable to judicial review where the exercise of power is arbitrary, mala fide, based on extraneous considerations or suffers from non-application of mind. Further, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, it has been emphasized that the benefit of remission policy ought to be extended in a fair, consistent and non-discriminatory manner keeping in view the reformative object underlying the policy of premature release. In the present case, the impugned order does not reflect consideration of the aforesaid settled principles of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. The philosophy underlying premature release/remission is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. The object of the remission policy is to encourage reformation of prisoners and facilitate their reintegration into the mainstream of society after they have undergone substantial period of incarceration and exhibited satisfactory conduct. In the present case, the petitioner has already undergone the requisite period of sentence and the material available on record demonstrates that his conduct in jail has remained satisfactory, which is also evident from the favourable recommendation made by the Jail Authorities as well as the no objection furnished by the learned trial Court. Once the relevant statutory requirements stand satisfied and no adverse material indicating likelihood of recurrence of offence or threat to society has been brought on record, denial of remission/premature release merely on the basis of a bald 8 negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and runs contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the reformative principles governing criminal jurisprudence. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that rejection of the petitioner’s claim for remission/premature release is founded merely upon the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board without there being any cogent or substantive material adverse to the petitioner. The favourable opinion/no objection furnished by the learned trial Court as well as the recommendation made by the Jail Authorities reflecting satisfactory conduct and eligibility of the petitioner have not been accorded due consideration by the respondent authorities. The impugned order does not disclose any independent application of mind nor does it assign any intelligible reason for discarding the favourable material available on record. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 10. Considering the long period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, his satisfactory jail conduct, favourable recommendation made by the Jail Authorities, positive opinion/no objection furnished by the learned trial Court and absence of any adverse material or statutory embargo disentitling him from consideration of remission/premature release, this Court is of the 9 considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of premature release under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The action of the respondent authorities in denying such benefit merely on the basis of a bald and mechanical recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, without assigning cogent reasons and without proper consideration of the relevant parameters governing remission, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission/premature release to the petitioner under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. / corresponding provisions of the B.N.S.S., 2023 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 Prison Rules, 1968. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil