1 CGHC010318652026 2026:CGHC:37300-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 490 of 2026 Cheduram Yadav S/o Hichharam Yadav, Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Kuchi P. .Chowki Gidhpuri, P.S. Palari Distt -Raipur ( Now Balda -Bazar - Bhatapara)(C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Govt Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General, Jail And Correctional Services, Jail Headquarter, Sector 19, Nava Raipur -Distt -Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Under Secretary, Department Jail C.G. Govt, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent Central Jail, Raipuir, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The District Magistrate, Raipuir, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Roshan Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.21 10:14:29 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Roshan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner through legal aid. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call entire records from the respondents authority pertaining to release the petitioner with respect to grant the benefit of remission of sentence. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authority for the consideration of grant of remission to the petitioner. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order passed by the office of R/3 (ANNEX P/1), vide dated 07/07/2020. 10.4 Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was convicted by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar, in Sessions Case No.14/2012, vide judgment dated 26.11.2012, along with the co- accused, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in respect of the murder of two persons and causing injury to another person, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The said conviction was affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.03.2022 in CRA No.1129/2012 3 and connected appeals. Thereafter, in SLP (Criminal), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 14.03.2023, modified the sentence to the extent that the sentences imposed upon the appellants shall run concurrently. Subsequently, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, vide opinion dated 11.08.2025, recommended remission of sentence under Section 432 Cr.P.C., observing that the conduct of the petitioner was reformative. Thereafter, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar, in M.J.C. No.69/2025, vide order dated 29.08.2025, allowed the petitioner’s application seeking remission of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already undergone approximately 14 years and 08 months of imprisonment out of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed under Section 302 of the IPC and, during the period of his incarceration, his conduct has been found to be reformative by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, who accordingly rendered a favourable opinion on the petitioner’s application for remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that, considering the period already undergone and the reformative conduct of the petitioner, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar, in M.J.C. No.69/2025, vide order dated 29.08.2025, was pleased to allow the application preferred through the Jail Authority seeking remission of sentence. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner deserves the benefit of remission in accordance with law. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of remission, as he has been convicted for the murder of 4 two persons. Learned State counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Notification dated 08.06.2026 issued by the Jail Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, whereby Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 has been amended and it has been specifically provided that a person “convicted for more than one murder” is excluded from the benefit contemplated under the said provision. It is, therefore, submitted that, in view of the aforesaid statutory bar and the undisputed fact that the petitioner stands convicted for the murder of two persons, the petitioner has no vested or enforceable right to claim remission and the order granting remission in his favour cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have perused the material available on record. 7. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of two persons and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The said conviction was affirmed by this Court and, thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 14.03.2023, modified the sentence only to the extent that the sentences imposed upon the petitioner shall run concurrently. Subsequently, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, rendered an opinion regarding the petitioner’s conduct being reformative and the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 29.08.2025, allowed the application seeking remission. 8. The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether, in view of the subsequent amendment made in the Chhattisgarh 5 Prisons Rules, 1968, the petitioner can claim the benefit of remission. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894, has amended Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, vide Notification dated 08.06.2026, whereby the said clause has been substituted to specifically provide that a prisoner “convicted for more than one murder” is excluded from the benefit contemplated under the said provision. 9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner stands convicted for the murder of two persons. Thus, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the category specifically excluded under amended Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. The fact that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of incarceration, or that his conduct has been found to be reformative, cannot confer upon him a right to remission contrary to the statutory rules governing the grant of such benefit. 10. The order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the petitioner’s application for remission was passed prior to the aforesaid amendment. The subsequent amendment has specifically created a statutory exclusion in respect of prisoners convicted for more than one murder. Therefore, notwithstanding the favourable opinion of the Jail Authority and the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner cannot claim remission in contravention of the amended Rule. 11. It is also well settled that remission is not an absolute or vested right of a prisoner and its grant is subject to the applicable statutory provisions, rules and policy governing premature release. Once the competent 6 rule-making authority has specifically excluded a particular category of prisoners from the benefit of remission, the Court cannot direct grant of such benefit in disregard of the statutory prohibition. 12. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, and particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been convicted for the murder of two persons and is, therefore, squarely covered by Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, as amended vide Notification dated 08.06.2026, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to claim remission under the said provision. The favourable opinion regarding his conduct and the period of imprisonment already undergone do not alter the statutory ineligibility arising from the amended Rule. 13. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of remission claimed under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the statutory bar contained in Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, as amended vide Notification dated 08.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika