1 CGHC010305902026 2026:CGHC:35888-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 465 of 2026 Chhotu @ Kampotar Rawani S/o Gendua Uraon, Aged About 27 Years Residant Of Gehlapani 09 Number Dafai Korea, Permanent Address- Raghunathpur Madwapara, Police Staion - Lundra, District - Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home (Jail) Deartment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Under Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, Home (Jail) Deartment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Director General, Prisons And Correctional Services, Sector -19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District -Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambikapur, Sarguja, District - Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, 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 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.14 10:38:06 +0530 2 13.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner (through Legal Aid). 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) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal; 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set- aside the order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 2; 10.3) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ, order direction commanding the respondent authorities to grant the petitioners remission under 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023/432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further be pleased to release the petitioners by granting remission in respect of the rest part of the punishment/sentence imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P/2); 10.4) That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in continuous custody since 22.12.2006 pursuant to his conviction under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide judgment dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Second Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 23/2007. It is submitted that the petitioner has undergone approximately 19 years and 7 months of actual imprisonment and has completed more than 20 years of imprisonment including earned remission, thereby becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of Central Jail, Ambikapur has, on several occasions, furnished favourable opinions in respect of the petitioner, recommending that he be granted the benefit of remission, having regard to his conduct during incarceration. It is contended that despite the aforesaid favourable opinions and the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, his claim for premature release has been rejected vide impugned order dated 11.05.2026, principally on the ground of the alleged bar contained in Rule 358(3)(g) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. Learned counsel submits that the said Rule has subsequently been amended vide notification dated 23.04.2025, whereby the earlier restriction has been removed, and therefore the petitioner’s claim was required to be considered in the light of the amended provision. It is argued that the respondents have failed to consider the petitioner’s long period of incarceration, earned 4 remission, jail conduct and the subsequent amendment in the applicable Rules, and have mechanically rejected his claim for premature release. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is similarly situated to the petitioner in Hemla Budhu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, W.P.(Cr.) No. 427/2026, decided on 30.07.2026, wherein this Hon’ble Court granted relief in the matter of premature release. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, non-speaking and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Second Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 23/2007. It is submitted that the petitioner has undergone the requisite period of incarceration, however, the power to grant remission or premature release under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is discretionary in nature and premature release cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely on completion of the prescribed period of imprisonment. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s case has been considered by the competent authority and his claim has been rejected vide order dated 11.05.2026. It is further submitted that the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, has also furnished an opinion dated 27.02.2025 declining premature release of 5 the petitioner. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order has been passed after consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances and that no ground is made out for interference by this Hon’ble 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 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Second Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 23/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in continuous custody since 22.12.2006 and has completed approximately 19 years and 7 months of actual imprisonment, besides earning remission in accordance with the applicable Rules. The material placed on record further reveals that the Superintendent of Central Jail, Ambikapur has, on several occasions, furnished favourable opinions in respect of the petitioner for grant of remission, and no material has been placed before this Court indicating any adverse conduct of the petitioner during his prolonged incarceration. 7. It is further evident from the record that the petitioner’s case for consideration of premature release was duly processed by the jail authorities. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Ambikapur furnished opinions on various occasions, including 31.07.2023, 31.01.2024, 6 07.05.2024, 18.07.2024, 10.10.2024, 29.01.2025, 29.08.2025, 24.12.2025, 27.01.2026, 17.02.2026 and 13.05.2026, recommending consideration of the petitioner for remission. However, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, vide opinion dated 27.02.2025, declined to recommend premature release of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2, vide impugned order dated 11.05.2026, rejected the petitioner’s claim by relying upon the alleged restriction contained in Rule 358(3)(g) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 8. This Court has carefully perused the material available on record. The impugned order proceeds primarily on the basis of the alleged bar contained in Rule 358(3)(g) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and does not disclose proper consideration of the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, the remission earned by him, his jail conduct and the repeated opinions furnished by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Ambikapur. More importantly, the impugned order does not appear to have considered the subsequent amendment in Rule 358 brought about vide notification dated 23.04.2025, which was in existence when the petitioner’s claim was finally rejected on 11.05.2026. The decision- making process, therefore, does not reflect due application of mind to the relevant and prevailing legal position. 9. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the power of remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is a statutory power to be exercised by the appropriate Government in 7 accordance with law and the applicable remission policy. Though premature release cannot be claimed as an absolute or indefeasible right merely upon completion of a particular period of imprisonment, an eligible convict is entitled to have his case considered fairly, objectively and in accordance with the Rules and policy applicable to his case. 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 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 approximately 19 years and 7 months of actual incarceration and has also earned remission during the period of his custody. The record further demonstrates that the Superintendent of Central Jail, Ambikapur repeatedly opined in favour of consideration of remission. However, while considering the petitioner’s case, the respondents have not demonstrated that the effect of the subsequent amendment dated 23.04.2025 to Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 was 8 duly examined. The petitioner’s claim, therefore, could not have been rejected merely by mechanically relying upon the earlier restrictive provision without examining the applicability of the amended Rule. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has undergone a very long period of incarceration and has earned remission during his custody. His case has also received repeated favourable consideration from the Superintendent of Central Jail, Ambikapur. Although the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, has furnished an opinion dated 27.02.2025 against premature release, such opinion was required to be considered along with all other relevant material and the prevailing statutory and regulatory framework. The impugned order dated 11.05.2026, however, does not demonstrate proper consideration of the amended Rule 358 and the other relevant circumstances of the petitioner. Such mechanical consideration of the petitioner’s claim cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.05.2026 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 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