1 CGHC010317192026 2026:CGHC:36490-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 472 of 2026 Dau Singh S/o Shri Ghursai Aged About 57 Years R/o Jhagarpur Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, C. G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Jail Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur District Raipur C. G. 3 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter Prisons, And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh. Raipur C. G. 4 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur C. G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.18 10:17:58 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon,ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set-aside the order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued/passed by the respondent no.2; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner remission under 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023/432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and under Rule 358 of C.G. Prisons Rule 1968 and to release the petitioner by granting remission of rest part of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Learned 2nd Additional Session Judge Raigarh (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 63/2009; and 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is undergoing sentence pursuant to the judgment of conviction dated 07.05.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in 3 Sessions Trial No.63/2009, whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 325, 506-B, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced, inter alia, to imprisonment for life. The criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner, being Cr.A. No.552/2013, was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2016. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.01.2018, and thus, the conviction and sentence attained finality. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been in custody continuously since 04.06.2009. As per the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as on 03.06.2026, the petitioner had undergone actual imprisonment of more than 16 years and 11 months and had further earned remission of 4 years, 9 months and 21 days, thereby completing more than 21 years of imprisonment including earned remission. Upon attaining the requisite eligibility, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10.04.2025 under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking remission of the remaining part of his sentence. Pursuant thereto, the opinion of the learned sentencing Court was sought and, vide memo dated 26.04.2025, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh opined that, if otherwise not prohibited, there would be no objection to considering the petitioner for release upon completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of imprisonment including earned 4 remission. Thereafter, the petitioner's case was processed through the jail authorities, the requisite reports were prepared under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, and the matter was forwarded for consideration of his case for premature release/remission. 5. However, vide impugned order dated 11.05.2026, respondent No.2 rejected the petitioner’s case for premature release/remission of the remaining part of the sentence, principally relying upon the adverse recommendation/opinion of the State Sentence Review Board. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 and a consequential direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of remission/premature release in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 is arbitrary, mechanical, non-speaking and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.06.2009 and, as per the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has undergone actual imprisonment of more than 16 years and 11 months, besides having earned remission of 4 years, 9 months and 21 days, thereby completing more than 21 years of imprisonment including earned remission. Learned counsel would submit that once the petitioner had attained the requisite period for 5 consideration of premature release/remission, his case was required to be considered objectively on the relevant statutory parameters; however, the same has been rejected in a perfunctory manner, principally on the basis of the adverse opinion of the State Sentence Review Board. It is contended that the impugned order does not disclose any independent application of mind by the competent authority nor does it assign cogent reasons as to why, despite the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and substantial earned remission, his case was not found fit for premature release. According to learned counsel, an order having the effect of continuing the incarceration of a life convict must reflect due and meaningful consideration of the relevant circumstances and cannot be sustained if passed in a cryptic or mechanical manner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has a legal right to have his claim for remission/premature release considered fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and remission framework. It is not the petitioner's case that premature release is an absolute or vested right; rather, the grievance is that his case has not received the consideration mandated in law. Learned counsel places reliance upon the opinion of the learned sentencing Court dated 26.04.2025, wherein it was observed that, if otherwise not prohibited, there would be no objection to considering the petitioner for release after completion of 14 years 6 of actual imprisonment and 20 years of imprisonment including earned remission. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for a very long period and his case, having been processed by the jail authorities under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, was required to be considered on its own merits. According to learned counsel, the favourable material available on record, including the opinion of the sentencing Court and the petitioner's period of incarceration and earned remission, has not been properly considered while passing the impugned order. 8. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, while rejecting the petitioner's claim, the respondents have placed undue reliance upon the gravity and nature of the offences for which the petitioner was convicted and the adverse recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, without undertaking a proper assessment of the factors relevant at the stage of consideration of premature release. Learned counsel submits that the gravity of the offence has already been taken into account at the stage of conviction and sentencing, whereas, at the stage of remission, the competent authority is required to consider the petitioner's conduct during incarceration, his reformative progress, the possibility of his rehabilitation and reintegration into society and whether any useful purpose would be served by his continued incarceration. It is submitted that the petitioner has already 7 undergone more than 16 years and 11 months of actual imprisonment and has completed more than 21 years including earned remission, and therefore his claim deserved a meaningful and reasoned consideration. According to learned counsel, continued incarceration without proper consideration of these relevant factors defeats the reformative object underlying the remission and premature-release framework and renders the impugned order legally unsustainable. 9. Placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 865, Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar & Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, Rajkumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 9 SCC 598, Laxman Naskar v. State of W.B., (2000) 7 SCC 626 and State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 606, to contend that the right of a life convict to be considered for remission in terms of the applicable policy is a legal right; that the competent authority must pass a reasoned order reflecting due application of mind; that the gravity of the offence alone cannot be the sole basis for denying remission; and that while considering premature release, the authorities are required to evaluate the prisoner’s post-conviction conduct, possibility of reformation, socio-economic condition, likelihood of reintegration and whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continued incarceration. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would 8 submit that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 deserves to be quashed and set aside, as the petitioner’s claim for premature release/remission has not been considered in accordance with the applicable statutory framework. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of remission/premature release in terms of Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. In the alternative, learned counsel submits that the matter may be remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s case, by taking into account his prolonged incarceration, earned remission and other relevant factors, within a time-bound period. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the petition and submit that the petitioner stands convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 325, 506-B, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, which conviction has attained finality after dismissal of the criminal appeal by this Court and the Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the nature and gravity of the offences, particularly those involving kidnapping and murder, constitute relevant considerations while examining the petitioner’s claim for premature release. Learned State counsel would further submit that although the case of the petitioner was processed by the jail authorities and the learned sentencing Court 9 had expressed its opinion, the State Sentence Review Board, upon consideration of the reports and comments of the concerned authorities, expressed an adverse opinion, pursuant to which the competent authority rejected the petitioner’s claim vide order dated 11.05.2026. It is contended that mere completion of the requisite period of incarceration or earning remission does not confer an indefeasible right to premature release, which remains subject to consideration by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and relevant factors, including the nature and gravity of the offence, its impact on society, the opinion of the concerned authorities and public interest. According to learned State counsel, the competent authority has considered the material available on record and has consciously rejected the claim of the petitioner; therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record. 12. The petitioner stands convicted vide judgment dated 07.05.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.63/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 325, 506-B, 364 and 302 of the Indian 10 Penal Code. The said conviction has attained finality, inasmuch as Criminal Appeal No.552/2013 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2016 and the Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 19.01.2018. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.06.2009. As per the information dated 03.06.2026 placed on record, the petitioner has undergone actual incarceration of more than 16 years and 11 months and has further earned remission of 4 years, 9 months and 21 days, thereby completing more than 21 years of imprisonment including earned remission. 13. The record further reveals that the petitioner’s case for remission/premature release was duly processed by the jail authorities. The learned sentencing Court, vide memo dated 26.04.2025, opined that, if otherwise not prohibited, there would be no objection to considering the petitioner’s release upon completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of imprisonment including earned remission. The petitioner’s case was thereafter processed in accordance with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and the requisite jail reports were forwarded for consideration of his claim for premature release/remission. 14. The petitioner’s claim for remission/premature release, however, came to be rejected by respondent No.2 vide impugned order 11 dated 11.05.2026, principally on the basis of the adverse recommendation/opinion of the State Sentence Review Board. A careful perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner’s case has not been independently examined with reference to the relevant statutory considerations, but has substantially proceeded on the adverse opinion of the Review Board and the material furnished by the concerned authorities. The impugned order does not demonstrate due consideration of the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration since 04.06.2009, the substantial period of earned remission, the opinion of the learned sentencing Court and other relevant circumstances germane to consideration of premature release. The decision, therefore, does not reflect the requisite objective and independent application of mind to the petitioner’s claim and, prima facie, suffers from non- consideration of relevant factors. 15. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice that the petitioner has invoked his claim under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The scheme of Rule 358, read with the remission provisions, contemplates fair consideration of the case of a life convict who has undergone the prescribed period of actual sentence and sentence with remission, while taking into account factors such as jail conduct, possibility of reformation, antecedents, and suitability for reintegration into society. The 12 provision is founded on the reformative theory of punishment and does not permit the claim for premature release to be rejected in a mechanical manner solely on the basis of the nature of the original offence, once the convict has undergone the qualifying period and the statutory requirements otherwise stand satisfied. 16. It is by now well settled that though remission or premature release cannot be claimed as an absolute right, a convict certainly has a legal right to be considered for such relief in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner in accordance with the governing policy/rules. In Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while considering premature release, the competent authority must examine relevant factors such as whether the offence is an individual act without affecting society at large, the likelihood of the crime being repeated, the potentiality of the convict to commit crime in future, and whether any fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the convict in prison any longer. In Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, the Supreme Court reiterated that the object of imprisonment, even in serious offences, is ultimately reformative and that while considering premature release the authorities must evaluate post- conviction conduct, age, health, familial circumstances, possibility of reintegration and whether continued incarceration serves any useful purpose. More recently, in Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 865, it has been 13 emphasized that an order rejecting remission must be a reasoned one and cannot rest merely on a bald conclusion or on the heinousness of the offence alone. 17. The philosophy underlying premature release is essentially reformative rather than retributive. In the present case, the petitioner has been in custody since 04.06.2009 and has already undergone more than 16 years and 11 months of actual incarceration, besides having earned remission of 4 years, 9 months and 21 days, thereby completing more than 21 years of imprisonment including earned remission. His case was duly processed under the applicable remission framework and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, vide memo dated 26.04.2025, expressed that, if otherwise not prohibited, there would be no objection to considering his release upon completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years of imprisonment including earned remission. In such circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to fair, objective and meaningful consideration of his claim under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. Denial of such consideration merely on the basis of an adverse recommendation, without examining the relevant circumstances independently, would be contrary to the requirement of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14 18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner’s claim for premature release/remission has not received the requisite objective and independent consideration. The impugned order dated 11.05.2026 proceeds principally on the adverse recommendation/opinion of the State Sentence Review Board, without adequately reflecting consideration of the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration since 04.06.2009, his substantial earned remission, the opinion furnished by the learned sentencing Court and the other relevant materials forming part of the remission proceedings. The adverse recommendation could undoubtedly be considered by the competent authority, but the same could not have been treated as conclusive without an independent assessment of the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the governing statutory framework. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind to relevant considerations and cannot be sustained in its present form. 19. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has undergone more than 16 years and 11 months of actual incarceration and has completed more than 21 years of imprisonment including earned remission, coupled with the favourable opinion expressed by the learned sentencing Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s claim deserved proper consideration in accordance with the applicable remission policy and statutory provisions. However, on the material presently available, this 15 Court would not substitute its own decision for that of the competent authority on the ultimate question of premature release. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.05.2026 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission/premature release to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with the usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 21. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu