1 CGHC010328652026 2026:CGHC:37779-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 498 of 2026 Dilshad Ahmed Khan S/o Haji Habib Ahmed Aged About 62 Years R/o Surya Vihar Apartment, D-1/5 Pachpedi Naka, Ps Tkrapra, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Presently Lodged In Raipur, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Since In Jail Through His Wife Jahanara Khan, W/o Dilshad Ahmed Khan, Presently Aged About 62 Years, Present R/o Shaheed Pandey Ward, Near Sahu Kirana Store, Bakra Market Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Services) Jail Department, Jail Headquarters, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jail Superintendent Raipur, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.25 22:15:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 24/08/2026 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities and direct the Respondent State to prematurely release the petitioner , in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 364-A, 120-B and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide judgment dated 04.04.2012 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.119/2009. The said conviction was affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in CRA No.420/2012 vide judgment dated 04.03.2015. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2016 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.3052/2016. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.03.2009 and is 3 presently lodged in Central Jail, Raipur. It is submitted that as on 13.10.2025, the petitioner had undergone more than 16 years of actual imprisonment and about 19 years, 08 months and 16 days of imprisonment including remission. During the period of incarceration, the petitioner was granted parole on several occasions and, according to the petitioner, he did not misuse the liberty so granted and his conduct in jail remained satisfactory. 4. Learned counsel further submits that upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, an opinion was sought from the learned Presiding Judge. Vide communication dated 23.09.2025, the learned Presiding Judge opined that the petitioner could be granted remission of sentence. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the prison authorities seeking the benefit of premature release. He submits that the State authorities, vide impugned order dated 07.07.2026, rejected the petitioner's application for premature release merely on the ground that he had committed a heinous/serious offence. It is contended that while considering the petitioner's claim, the authorities were required to consider the relevant factors prescribed under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, including the opinion of the Court, the report of the Collector and the jail report regarding the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner. 5. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned order does not disclose proper application of mind and is bereft of cogent and logical reasons. According to learned counsel, the authorities have failed to consider the long period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 4 his satisfactory conduct in jail, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge and other relevant circumstances, while placing undue reliance upon the gravity of the offence. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused Manish Thorani has already been granted the benefit of remission and was released on 06.02.2026. It is also submitted that this Hon'ble Court has granted the benefit of remission to a similarly placed co-accused in WPCR No.319/2026 vide order dated 19.06.2026. The petitioner, therefore, seeks consideration of his case on the ground of parity as well. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment and the rejection of his application for premature release, without proper consideration of the relevant factors and without assigning cogent reasons, warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 be quashed and the petitioner be granted the benefit of premature release/remission in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner stands convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 120-B and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is submitted that premature release or remission is not a vested right and mere completion of the qualifying period of sentence does not automatically entitle a convict to release. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner's case was duly considered by the competent authorities and, after taking into consideration the relevant materials, his application for remission was rejected vide impugned order dated 5 07.07.2026. It is further submitted that the gravity and nature of the offence committed by the petitioner constitute valid considerations for denial of premature release. Learned State counsel would contend that the opinion of the concerned police authority, as communicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Region, Raipur, was also taken into consideration by the competent authority. It is argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any procedural irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 9. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 364-A, 120-B and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide judgment dated 04.04.2012 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.119/2009. The said conviction was affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in CRA No.420/2012 vide judgment dated 04.03.2015. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2016 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3052/2016. 10. The record further reveals that the petitioner has remained in custody since 21.03.2009 and, as on 13.10.2025, has undergone more than 16 years of actual imprisonment and about 19 years, 08 months and 16 6 days of imprisonment including remission. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has completed more than 14 years of actual imprisonment. The custody certificate and jail records further indicate that the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory during his incarceration. 11. It is also borne out from the record that upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, an opinion was sought from the learned Presiding Judge. The learned Presiding Judge, vide communication dated 23.09.2025, opined that the petitioner could be granted remission of sentence. It is further evident from the record that the petitioner was released on parole on several occasions and, according to the petitioner, he did not misuse the liberty so granted and his conduct remained satisfactory during such period. 12. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for premature release by the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 is sustainable in law. 13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The Rule contemplates consideration of the case of an eligible life convict by the State Sentence Review Board after examining various factors, including the prisoner's conduct and behaviour in jail, the opinion of the sentencing Court, the report of the Collector and Superintendent of Police and other relevant circumstances having bearing on his release. The Rule further provides that while the State Government may accept or reject the 7 recommendation of the Board, any order of rejection must disclose reasonable and logical reasons. 14. The law relating to premature release and remission is no longer res integra. 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 is required to examine relevant factors such as the possibility of recurrence of crime, the potential of the prisoner for reformation and rehabilitation, and whether his continued incarceration serves any useful purpose. Due importance is also required to be attached to the prisoner's conduct and the material relating to his reformation and rehabilitation. 15. In Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that orders relating to remission are subject to judicial review and may be interfered with where the decision-making process is arbitrary, mala fide or based upon irrelevant considerations. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, it was emphasized that remission policies must be implemented in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner. 16. Upon careful scrutiny of the impugned order dated 07.07.2026, this Court finds that the petitioner's claim has been rejected mainly on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and on the adverse opinion of the concerned police authority. However, the impugned order does not reflect meaningful consideration of several relevant circumstances, namely, the petitioner's long period of incarceration, his satisfactory jail conduct, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the fact 8 that he was released on parole on several occasions without misuse of such liberty, and the other relevant factors bearing upon his reformation and premature release. 17. The gravity of the offence undoubtedly constitutes a relevant factor while considering premature release. Nevertheless, once a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration under the applicable Rules, the competent authority is required to undertake a holistic assessment of all relevant factors. In the present case, the impugned order does not disclose why the favourable materials available on record, including the petitioner's long period of incarceration, satisfactory jail conduct and favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, were found insufficient or how the adverse opinion outweighed the positive circumstances relating to his conduct and reformation. 18. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that the co-accused Manish Thorani, who was convicted in the same case, has already been granted the benefit of remission and was released on 06.02.2026. It is further borne out from the record that this Hon'ble Court, in WPCR No.319/2026 vide order dated 19.06.2026, has granted the benefit of remission to a similarly placed co-accused. Though the principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically, it nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance which ought to have been considered by the authorities while evaluating the petitioner's claim. 19. The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. Long incarceration coupled with satisfactory conduct and demonstrated 9 reformation are significant considerations which cannot be ignored. The object of the Rules is to ensure that a prisoner who has undergone substantial incarceration and has exhibited signs of reformation receives fair and objective consideration for reintegration into society. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned decision as contemplated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The order fails to demonstrate due consideration of the relevant factors, including the petitioner's long period of incarceration, satisfactory jail conduct and favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, and therefore cannot be sustained in law. 21. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 07.07.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release/remission is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if his detention is 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. 22. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved