1 CGHC010314012026 2026:CGHC:37527-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 495 of 2026 1 - Trilochan Dhruv S/o Vijay Dhruv, Presently Aged About 34 Years, R/o Jangal Para Nagri, Police Station Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Additional Secretary, Home and Jail Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General (Prisons and Rehabilitation Services), Jail Department, Jail Headquarters, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jail Superintendent, Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Dangi, 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 11:36:19 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s): “I. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P/01) passed by the respondent No.1, whereby, the case of the petitioner for remission u/s 432 of Cr.P.C. r/w rule 358 of Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 has been rejected. II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to relax the petitioner u/s- 432 of Cr.P.C. r/w rule 358 of Chhattisgarh prison Rules, 1968, in the interest of Justice. III. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent no.1 to reconsider the petitioner’s case for remission afresh, in accordance with law, after considering the period of actual incarceration, earned remission, conduct in prison, evidence of reformation and prospects of reintegration, and to pass a reasoned order thereupon within a stipulated period. IV. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide judgment dated 29.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, in Sessions Case No.48/2009. It is submitted that the said conviction was affirmed by this Court in CRA No.124/2010 vide order dated 23.09.2015 and the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being SLP (Crl.) No.5749/2016, was dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2016. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remained in custody since 16.10.2009 and, as per the jail records, has undergone approximately 16 years 09 months and 19 days of actual imprisonment as on 03.08.2026 and 19 years 06 months and 01 day including remission as on 14.06.2024, and has thus completed more than 21 years of imprisonment including remission. It is submitted that the petitioner has thereby become eligible for consideration of premature release under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Presiding Judge, upon a reference being made by the competent authority vide letter dated 21.06.2024, expressed no objection to the grant of remission vide memo dated 15.07.2024. The learned Presiding Judge also opined that the conduct of the petitioner in jail has been remedial and that there was no criminal, economic or family 4 background warranting any adverse opinion regarding his conduct, remission or any adverse impact upon society after his release. The learned Presiding Judge/trial Court accordingly opined that the petitioner should be extended the benefit of remission. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, has also reported that the petitioner has been released on parole on three occasions and has surrendered within time on each occasion, with no adverse record during such release. The jail authorities have further reported that the petitioner's conduct in jail has been satisfactory, that there is scope for his rehabilitation in society and that his continued incarceration is not considered necessary. It is further submitted that despite the favourable opinion of the learned sentencing Court and the positive report of the jail authorities, the respondent-State, after consideration by the State Sentence Review Board in its meeting dated 23.03.2026, rejected the petitioner's claim for premature release vide impugned order dated 10.04.2026. Learned counsel contends that the rejection is primarily founded upon the gravity and nature of the offence and upon the opinion of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, to the effect that resentment exists against the petitioner in the locality and that the possibility of an untoward incident cannot be ruled out. 4. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is arbitrary, cryptic and non-speaking and suffers from non-application of mind, inasmuch as it does not 5 demonstrate consideration of the various mandatory factors prescribed under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It is argued that the amended Rule 358 requires consideration of relevant factors including the opinion of the Court, the report of the Collector/District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, the jail report regarding the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner, the nature and circumstances of the offence, the possibility of the prisoner reverting to criminal habits and the prospects of his rehabilitation. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has not even been supplied with the reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, thereby depriving him of an effective opportunity to know and meet the material relied upon against him. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order does not record any cogent or logical reason for disregarding the favourable opinion of the learned sentencing Court and the positive report of the jail authorities. Mere reference to the seriousness or heinous nature of the offence cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for denying premature release after the petitioner has undergone a prolonged period of incarceration and has demonstrated satisfactory conduct. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 be quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities be directed 6 to grant the benefit of premature release/remission to the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner stands convicted under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code for having committed, along with co-accused persons, gang rape upon a 15-year-old minor girl. It is submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner is grave and heinous in nature and, considering the seriousness of the offence and the report submitted by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, the State Sentence Review Board found the petitioner unsuitable for premature release. It is further submitted that remission or premature release is not a matter of right and that the opinion of the sentencing Court or the jail authorities is only recommendatory in nature and is not binding upon the competent authority. Learned State counsel further submits that the competent authority, after considering the material available on record, has exercised its discretion in accordance with the applicable Rules and, therefore, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 8. 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 7 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 duly recommended by the Jail Superintendent. 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. 9. 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 8 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 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. 10. 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 9 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 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. 11. 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 10 impugned order dated 10.04.2026 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 12. 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 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. 13. 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 11 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. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil