1 CGHC010308082026 2026:CGHC:36743-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 456 of 2026 Shyam Kumar S/o- Paklu, Aged About 32 Years R/o- Hedaspali, P.S. Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), Currently Lodged At Central Jail Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General, Jails And Correctional Services, Jail Headquarters, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shishi Dixit, Advocate (through legal aid) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18-08-2026 1. Heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner through legal aid. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.19 15:03:14 +0530 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s): “”10.1 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner from the respondent authorities for kind perusal by Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 11.5.2026 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 1 in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to release the petitioner under the provision of Section 473 of BNSS, 2023, in the interest of justice, or, may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of remission, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail, Raipur, pursuant to the judgment dated 29.10.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 61/2010, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was upheld by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 994/2011 vide judgment dated 03.03.2016, and the SLP (Crl.) No. 722/2017 preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 23.02.2017. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.07.2010 and has undergone about 17 years and 07 months of imprisonment including remission, with satisfactory conduct and good 3 behaviour throughout his incarceration. On his application for remission, Respondent No. 3 sought the opinion of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, who, vide letter dated 25.08.2025, found the petitioner’s character to be corrective and, vide order dated 15.09.2025, recommended remission of his sentence. However, despite the said recommendation and the material available on record, Respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioner’s application for remission vide impugned order dated 11.05.2026, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the impugned order rejecting his application for remission is unsustainable, as the petitioner has undergone more than 17 years of incarceration and has maintained good behaviour and conduct throughout his jail term, which is a material and relevant consideration while examining a case for remission. The jail authorities have recorded a positive report regarding his conduct, and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, after carefully considering the material available on record, also recommended remission of the petitioner’s sentence vide order dated 15.09.2025. Thus, both the jail authorities and the concerned Trial Court have expressed favourable opinions regarding the petitioner’s case; however, Respondent No. 1 has rejected the application without duly considering the said positive recommendations and the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration. The petitioner has undergone the punishment imposed upon him, has expressed remorse for his act, and, in view of his satisfactory conduct and rehabilitation during incarceration, there is no material to suggest that his release 4 would pose any threat to society. Therefore, the petitioner’s case deserves to be reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with law, by taking into account the aforesaid relevant circumstances and favourable recommendations. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is against the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajo Rajwa Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar, reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 1068 and the judgment passed in Joseph v. State of Kerla reported in (2023) SCC Online 1211. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/ respondents while opposing the petition, submits that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 has been passed strictly in accordance with law and after due consideration of the relevant materials available on record. It is contended that the petitioner has been convicted for a heinous and grave offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and therefore, the nature and seriousness of the offence are relevant considerations while examining a case for remission. It is further submitted that the competent authority has considered the opinion of the District Magistrate, Mahasamund as well as the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund as required under Section 432(2) of CrPC, and upon due evaluation of such inputs, has arrived at a conscious decision to reject the application for premature release. Hence, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. ******* It is further argued that grant of remission is not a matter of right, but lies within the discretionary domain of the appropriate Government, to be exercised on the basis of relevant considerations including public interest and societal impact. In this regard, reliance is placed on State 5 of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 and Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 1, to contend that the power of remission must be exercised cautiously, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and its impact on society. Learned State counsel would submit that merely because the petitioner has completed a certain period of incarceration or earned remission, he does not become entitle to premature release as a matter of right. It is thus submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The rejection of the petitioner’s application/case for premature release is founded primarily on adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, without any independent application of mind by the competent authority to the relevant statutory and judicially settled parameters governing remission. 8. It is well-settled that while exercising powers under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC, the appropriate Government is required to take a holistic and reasoned decision. The law on the subject has been succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595, wherein the Court identified the guiding factors for grant of premature release. The relevant portion reads: “The following factors are required to be considered: (i) whether the offence is an 6 individual act of crime without affecting the society at large; (ii) whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime; (iii) whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime; (iv) whether any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.” 9. In the present case, there is no discussion whatsoever of the aforesaid parameters in the impugned order. The authority has failed to evaluate the petitioner’s conduct during incarceration, his reformation, or the likelihood of recidivism. 10. Further, in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., AIR 2022 SC 2017 : (2022) 4 SCR 1103, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the opinion sought under Section 432(2) CrPC. must be based on objective assessment and not merely on the nature of the offence. The Court observed: “The opinion of the Presiding Judge must reflect due application of mind to the relevant factors and cannot be a mere reiteration of the nature of the offence or the findings recorded at the time of conviction.” 11. Similarly, in Rajo v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the opinion of the Presiding Judge or other authorities is only one of the inputs and cannot be treated as determinative. It was held: “The appropriate Government is required to take an independent decision based on all relevant considerations including post-conviction 7 conduct; the opinion of the Presiding Judge cannot be given primacy if it merely reiterates the circumstances of conviction.” 12. In the present case, the impugned order reflects a mechanical reliance on adverse opinions without independent evaluation. Such an approach defeats the very purpose of remission, which is rooted in the reformative theory of punishment. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 has held: “The policy of remission is a reformative measure and should be applied in a fair and reasonable manner. The decision must not be arbitrary but based on relevant considerations.” 14. Likewise, in Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 1, it has been observed: “Though the power of remission is discretionary, it must be exercised in a just, fair and reasonable manner, and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or on extraneous considerations.” 15. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the respondent authorities have failed to discharge their statutory obligation. The impugned order is cryptic, non-speaking, and suffers from non-application of mind, as it does not reflect consideration of the petitioner’s long incarceration, jail conduct, reformation, or other relevant factors. 16. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has undergone more than the requisite period of incarceration and his case was duly recommended by the Jail Superintendent. There is nothing on record to 8 indicate any adverse conduct during incarceration or any likelihood of threat to society upon release. 17. In view of the foregoing analysis and the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) is arbitrary, unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.05.2026 is hereby quashed. 19. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has undergone substantial period of incarceration, has earned remission, has maintained satisfactory conduct in jail, and there is no material indicating likelihood of recidivism, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of premature release to the petitioner. 20. The respondents are, therefore, directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case, in accordance with law. 21. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika