1 CGHC010287522026 2026:CGHC:34684-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 448 of 2026 Beerbal Uraon S/o Chitru Uraon Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Koylari, Thana Lundra, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, Presently Confined In Central Jail, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. Convict Prisoner No. 30/49. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Jail Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Jail And Correctional Services, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, C.G., 3 - The Superintendent Central Jail, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.J.K.Gupta, 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 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 7.8.2026 1. Heard Mr.J.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.07 17:27:25 +0530 2 Mr.Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with following prayers:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.05.2026 passed by Respondent No.1. 10.2 Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.05.2026 passed by Respondent No.1. 10.3 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release strictly in accordance with law. 10.4 Direct reconsideration within a time-bound period, preferably within 60 days. 10.5 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted also.” 3. The petitioner is a life convict presently lodged in Central Jail, Durg, pursuant to the judgment dated 27.04.2013 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 09/2011. After undergoing more than 18 years of imprisonment including remission, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.05.2024 seeking premature release/remission of sentence. The application was forwarded by the Superintendent of Jail to the trial Court for its opinion. The learned trial Court, by its opinion dated 30.12.2024, expressed that it had no objection to the petitioner's premature 3 release. Thereafter, the complete proposal along with all relevant documents was forwarded by the Superintendent of Jail to the competent authority on 18.09.2025 for consideration. However, the State Government rejected the petitioner's request for premature release solely on the ground of the nature and gravity of the offence, without extending the benefit of premature release. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles governing remission and premature release of life convicts. It was contended that the petitioner has already undergone more than the minimum qualifying period prescribed under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 475 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), and therefore his case deserved objective consideration on relevant parameters such as jail conduct, reformation, rehabilitation and possibility of reintegration into society. Learned counsel further submitted that the authorities have rejected the petitioner's claim solely on the basis of the seriousness of the offence, which had already been taken into consideration by the trial Court while imposing the sentence. It was argued that the gravity of the offence cannot remain the sole criterion for denying premature release after the convict has completed the statutory qualifying period. 5. It was further submitted that the opinion of the District Magistrate 4 and Superintendent of Police is only recommendatory in nature and is not binding upon the competent authority. The impugned order does not disclose any independent application of mind regarding the petitioner's conduct in prison, his rehabilitation, family circumstances or the likelihood of his committing any offence in future. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India & Others, (2000) 2 SCC 595, wherein the Supreme Court laid down the relevant factors to be considered while deciding cases of premature release, namely whether the offence was an individual act, the possibility of recurrence, whether the convict had lost his criminal potential, whether further incarceration would serve any useful purpose, and the socio-economic condition of the convict's family. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release in accordance with law. 6. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner's case was considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable remission policy and the relevant statutory provisions. It was submitted that the petitioner was convicted for a grave and heinous offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Considering the seriousness of the crime and its impact upon society, the competent authority found that the petitioner was not a fit case for grant of premature release. It was further contended that 5 premature release is not a matter of right merely because a life convict has completed the qualifying period of imprisonment. The competent authority is required to examine all relevant circumstances, including the nature of the offence, public interest and the overall facts of the case before exercising its discretion. Learned Deputy Government Advocate therefore submitted that no illegality, arbitrariness or procedural irregularity has been committed by the respondents and that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present writ petition. 8. It is well settled that a life convict does not acquire an indefeasible or vested right to be released merely upon completion of the qualifying period prescribed under Section 433A CrPC (now Section 475 BNSS). Premature release is a matter of executive discretion to be exercised in accordance with the applicable remission policy and upon consideration of all relevant circumstances. 9. The records indicate that the petitioner's case was duly processed by the jail authorities and considered by the competent Government authority. After examining the entire material, the competent authority declined to grant premature release, primarily taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence committed 6 by the petitioner. Such consideration cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous, as the seriousness of the offence continues to remain one of the relevant factors while considering premature release. 10.Merely because the learned trial Court expressed no objection or because the petitioner has undergone the requisite qualifying period of imprisonment would not automatically entitle him to premature release. Likewise, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar (supra) require consideration of several factors, and no single factor is conclusive in favour of the convict. 11.This Court does not find that the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides, non-application of mind or violation of any statutory provision warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12.Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere with the decision of the competent authority, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu