1 CGHC010171622026 2026:CGHC:37084-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 243 of 2026 Mahendra S/o Shri Bishat Aged About 38 Years R/o Vill- Gadadih P.S. Bori, Dist- Durg (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Dist- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Law Department Atal Nagar New Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Dist- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director General Of Police (Jail) Raipur Dist- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg Dist- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents WPCR No. 254 of 2026 Govind S/o- Shri Bishat Satnami, Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village - Gadadih, P.S. Bori, District- Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan,new Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.24 10:56:45 +0530 2 2 - Secretary , Law Department, Atal Nagar, New Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director General Of Police (Jail) Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents WPCR No. 247 of 2026 Vijay S/o Shri Bishat Satnami Aged About 45 Years R/o Vill.- Gadadih, P.S. Bori, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary, Law Department, Atal Nagar, New Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director General Of Police (Jail) Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 3 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. 2. Since the facts involved in all the three petitions are substantially identical, they are being considered and decided together by this common order. 3. The WPCR No. 243 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS quashing the order dated 22.03.2026 passed by the respondent No. 01 and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reconsidered the application of the petitioner for premature release/remission of jail sentence, in the interest of justice. 10.2. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may, deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition." 4. The WPCR No. 247 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS quashing the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the respondent No. 4 01 and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reconsidered the application of the petitioner for premature release/remission of jail sentence, in the interest of justice. 10.2. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may, deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition." 5. The WPCR No. 254 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS quashing the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the respondent No. 01 and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reconsidered the application of the petitioner for premature release/remission of jail sentence, in the interest of justice. 10.2. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may, deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 6. The petitioners, namely, Mahendra, Vijay and Govind, are undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life in Central Jail, Durg, pursuant to the judgment dated 19.04.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 106/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence were challenged before this Court and the appeals came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.01.2015. The 5 challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also failed with dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions vide order dated 04.05.2017. The petitioners have remained in custody since 05.01.2008 and, excluding the remission earned by them, had undergone more than 18 years and 03 months of imprisonment by April, 2026. 7. After completion of the requisite period of substantive imprisonment, the petitioners submitted applications for their premature release/remission of the remaining sentence. Their cases were processed by the jail authorities and the opinion of the concerned Presiding Judge was obtained, which was favourable to their release on remission. The matter was thereafter placed before the competent authorities/State Sentence Review Board. However, the State Government rejected the applications by separate orders dated 22.03.2026 in the case of petitioner Mahendra and 06.04.2026 in the cases of petitioners Vijay and Govind, principally relying upon the reports of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police expressing apprehension of a possibility of fight or breach of peace after their release, besides referring to the nature of the offence. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders rejecting their applications for premature release/remission, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending, inter alia, that the rejection of their applications was not based upon proper and objective consideration of the relevant circumstances, particularly their prolonged incarceration, the favourable opinion of the concerned Presiding Judge and their conduct during incarceration, and that a mere 6 apprehension of a possibility of fight after release could not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis for denying the benefit of premature release/remission. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for quashing of the respective orders and for their release from custody in accordance with law. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in all the writ petitions, would submit that the petitioners have undergone more than 18 years of actual incarceration, excluding the remission earned by them, and have thus completed the requisite period for consideration of their cases for premature release. It is contended that the competent jail authorities, after considering the conduct and other relevant aspects of the petitioners, processed their cases and the concerned Presiding Judge also furnished a favourable opinion regarding their release on remission. However, the State Government, while rejecting their applications, has substantially relied upon the reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police expressing a mere apprehension of possibility of fight after their release, without demonstrating any concrete or cogent material warranting such apprehension. Learned counsel submits that such a vague apprehension, particularly when considered against the petitioners’ prolonged incarceration and favourable reports/opinion available on record, could not have been made the sole or determinative basis for denying premature release. 10. It is further submitted that the impugned orders do not reflect an objective and meaningful consideration of the relevant factors governing 7 premature release/remission and have been passed without properly considering the petitioners’ conduct during incarceration, the period already undergone and the favourable opinion of the concerned Presiding Judge. Learned counsel places reliance upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595 and Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2022 SC 2017, as well as the decision of this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.821/2021 decided on 05.07.2023, and submits that the decision regarding premature release must be based upon relevant and objective considerations and not upon mere conjecture or apprehension. It is, therefore, prayed that the respective impugned orders rejecting the applications for premature release/remission be quashed and the petitioners be directed to be released forthwith, subject to such conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper. 11. Learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions, would oppose the petitions and submit that the petitioners have been convicted for a serious and heinous offence involving the murder of Mahesh, committed in furtherance of their common intention, followed by destruction of evidence. It is submitted that the applications for premature release were duly considered by the competent authority after taking into account the opinion of the concerned Court, the reports of the Jail Superintendent, Medical Officer, Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, as well as the nature and gravity of the offence. The State Sentence Review Board, upon consideration of the material available on record, did not recommend the premature release of the 8 petitioners. 12. Learned State counsel would further submit that the competent authorities have declined premature release on the basis of the reports of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, wherein apprehension has been expressed regarding the possibility of fight and disturbance upon the release of the petitioners. It is contended that the gravity of the offence and the apprehension of breach of peace are relevant considerations while examining an application for premature release of a life convict and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be said to be wholly without basis. It is further submitted that the favourable opinion of the concerned Presiding Judge is only one of the factors to be considered and is not, by itself, determinative of the petitioners’ entitlement to premature release. On these grounds, learned State counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. Since all the three writ petitions arise out of substantially identical facts and involve a common question regarding rejection of the petitioners’ applications for premature release/remission, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 15. The undisputed position emerging from the record is that the petitioners are undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to the judgment dated 19.04.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.106/2008. Their conviction and sentence have attained finality upon dismissal of their appeals by 9 this Court and thereafter dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioners have remained in custody since 05.01.2008 and, excluding the remission earned by them, have undergone more than 18 years and 03 months of actual incarceration. Their cases for premature release were processed by the jail authorities and the opinion of the concerned Presiding Judge was also obtained, which was favourable to their release. 16. The principal reason assigned by the State Government for declining premature release is the report of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police expressing an apprehension that there may be a possibility of fight or disturbance after the release of the petitioners, besides reference to the nature and gravity of the offence. In our considered view, such apprehension, by itself, cannot constitute a sufficient or legally sustainable basis for denying premature release, particularly when the same is not supported by any concrete material indicating the likelihood of recurrence of crime or any other circumstance demonstrating that the petitioners continue to possess the potentiality to commit crime. The decision-making authority was required to examine the relevant factors in their entirety and to arrive at an objective conclusion on the basis of the material available on record. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595, while considering the question of premature release of life convicts, laid down the relevant considerations, including whether the offence was an individual act affecting society at large, whether there was any likelihood of recurrence of crime, whether the convict had 10 lost the potentiality to commit crime, whether any fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the convict in prison any further and the socio- economic condition of the convict and his family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found the rejection of premature release applications unsustainable where the Government had failed to properly consider these relevant factors and had placed undue reliance upon police objections. 18. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 12 SCC 52 : AIR 2022 SC 2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the decision regarding remission must be an informed decision based upon all relevant factors and that the opinion of the Presiding Judge obtained in the remission proceedings cannot be reduced to a mere formality. It has further been held that the decision of the Government is amenable to judicial review where the same suffers from arbitrariness or non-application of mind. 19. It is true that, as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander (supra) and Rajan v. Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 14 SCC 114, grant of remission ordinarily falls within the domain of the competent executive authority and the Court should not ordinarily supplant the decision of such authority. However, the said principle does not insulate an order of remission from judicial review. Where the decision-making process is found to be arbitrary, founded upon irrelevant or insufficient considerations, or demonstrative of non- application of mind to the material factors bearing upon premature 11 release, the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 remains available to correct such illegality. The present case is required to be examined in that limited but important sphere of judicial review. 20. In the present case, the petitioners have already undergone an exceptionally long period of actual incarceration of more than 18 years. Their cases were processed by the jail authorities; the concerned Presiding Judge expressed a favourable opinion regarding their release; and the material placed before the State Government included the relevant reports concerning their incarceration. Yet, the applications have been rejected substantially on the basis of a generalized apprehension of possibility of a future fight, without disclosing any concrete or objective material demonstrating that the petitioners, after such prolonged incarceration, continue to pose such a threat as would justify their continued detention. The impugned orders also do not demonstrate a meaningful consideration of the factors indicated in Laxman Naskar (supra), particularly the possibility of recurrence of crime, the present potentiality of the petitioners to commit crime, their conduct during incarceration and whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continuing their confinement. 21. We are also conscious of the fact that the gravity of the offence is undoubtedly a relevant consideration while considering premature release. However, the gravity of the offence, which has already been taken into consideration by the sentencing Court while imposing the sentence and by the appellate Courts while affirming the conviction, cannot by itself be treated as an inexhaustible ground for continuing 12 incarceration notwithstanding the petitioners having undergone the requisite period and their cases having otherwise become eligible for consideration for premature release. The object of considering premature release is to assess the present circumstances and the possibility of rehabilitation and reformation of the convict, and not merely to reiterate the circumstances which resulted in the original conviction. 22. In State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that while considering premature release of a life convict, the authorities are required to take into consideration, inter alia, whether there is any chance of future recurrence of crime, whether the convict has lost his potentiality to commit crime, whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continued confinement and other similar circumstances. The decision-making process, therefore, cannot be reduced to a mechanical reiteration of the nature of the offence or a vague apprehension unsupported by objective material. 23. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not withstand judicial scrutiny. The petitioners have undergone more than 18 years of actual incarceration; their cases were duly processed for premature release; the opinion of the concerned Presiding Judge was favourable; and the principal ground relied upon for rejection is a generalized apprehension of future quarrel which, in the absence of cogent supporting material and in the face of the other relevant circumstances, cannot reasonably justify their continued incarceration. The impugned 13 orders, therefore, suffer from non-application of mind and failure to consider the relevant factors governing premature release/remission. 24. At this stage, we may also notice that in Dharam Pal & Others v. State of U.P. & Others, (2013) 9 SCC 798, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances before it, directed the concerned jail authorities to release the life convicts forthwith, if not required in any other case. The said decision demonstrates that, in an appropriate case and upon consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the constitutional Court is not powerless to mould the relief so as to secure the ends of justice. 25. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances noticed hereinabove, particularly the prolonged actual incarceration undergone by the petitioners, the favourable opinion of the concerned Presiding Judge, the absence of any cogent material demonstrating likelihood of recurrence of crime, and the unsustainable basis on which the applications for premature release have been rejected, we are satisfied that the petitioners deserve the benefit of remission. The continued incarceration of the petitioners, in the facts as obtaining herein, would serve no fruitful purpose. 26. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions, namely, W.P.(Cr.) Nos. 243/2026, 247/2026 and 254/2026, are allowed. The respective impugned orders dated 22.03.2026 and 06.04.2026, whereby the applications of the petitioners for premature release/remission were rejected, are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are 14 directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioners and release them forthwith from Central Jail, Durg, if they are not required to be detained in connection with any other case, subject to verification of their identity and compliance with the usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. 27. It is clarified that the benefit of release granted by this order shall not affect any other proceeding, case or lawful obligation, if any, against the petitioners, and the competent authorities shall be at liberty to take action in accordance with law in the event of any legal impediment to their release arising from any other case. 28. All the writ petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved