1 CGHC010103682026 2026:CGHC:36547-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 144 of 2026 1 - Santdas S/o Shri Budhram Kosale Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Raurpur, Police Station- Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) Present Address- Indrapuri, Tifra, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Jail Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, 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.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.20 11:43:59 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "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 05.01.2026 (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 to release the petitioner by granting remission of rest part of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.03.2012 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Learned 5th Additional Session Judge Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 117/2009; 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and 3 circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 24.03.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.117/2009, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 302/149 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC (two counts), besides other sentences, all of which were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner is presently lodged in the Central Jail, Bilaspur. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner remained in custody from 03.02.2009 to 30.06.2020 and thereafter has been continuously in custody since 26.01.2021. It is submitted that the petitioner has undergone about 16 years and 06 months of actual imprisonment and, as on 09.02.2026, had earned remission of 4 years, 08 months and 02 days, thereby completing more than 21 years of sentence including earned remission. It is further submitted that the petitioner has maintained good conduct throughout his incarceration and has been released on parole on 14 occasions without any complaint regarding misuse of liberty or violation of the conditions of parole. 5. Learned counsel submits that after completion of 14 years of actual jail sentence, the petitioner had sought his premature release by way of remission of the remaining part of his sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Pursuant thereto, the learned trial Court was requested to furnish its opinion regarding the petitioner's 4 case for remission and, vide memo dated 13.06.2025, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, expressed his opinion in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10.07.2025 from jail seeking premature release/remission of the remaining part of his sentence. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, prepared the requisite jail report dated 22.07.2025 under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, and forwarded the petitioner's case for consideration of his premature release. 6. Learned counsel further submits that while processing the petitioner's case, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide communication/memo dated 13.06.2025, furnished his opinion in respect of the petitioner's premature release. Likewise, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, prepared the jail report dated 22.07.2025 under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, recommending the petitioner's case for consideration of premature release. However, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, and the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, furnished adverse opinions against the petitioner's premature release. Despite the favourable recommendation of the Jail Superintendent and the petitioner's long incarceration, the respondent-State, by the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, rejected the petitioner's claim for premature release by exercising power under Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, primarily on the ground of the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police and observing that the petitioner was convicted in a case involving double murder and that his premature release would adversely affect society. Learned counsel 5 submits that the said conclusion is wholly erroneous, as the petitioner's post-conviction conduct, prolonged incarceration, earned remission and repeated release on parole without any complaint have not been properly considered while rejecting his claim for premature release. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-State has failed to consider the petitioner's case in its proper perspective. It is submitted that, while considering the claim for premature release, the authorities have placed undue reliance upon the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, and the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, as well as the fact that the petitioner was convicted in a case involving double murder, without undertaking an independent and comprehensive assessment of the relevant factors. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order does not disclose proper consideration of the petitioner's actual period of incarceration of about 16 years and 06 months, earned remission of 04 years, 08 months and 02 days, repeated release on parole on 14 occasions without any adverse incident, post-conviction conduct and the favourable jail report. It is further submitted that the mere gravity of the offence or the adverse opinion of the police or district administration cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative of the petitioner's entitlement to consideration for premature release. The competent authority is required to balance the interest of society with the reformative objective of punishment and to consider whether any fruitful purpose would be served by the petitioner's continued incarceration. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 suffers from non-application of mind and failure to consider the relevant 6 circumstances governing the petitioner's claim for remission. 8. Learned counsel submits that the object of premature release is founded on the reformative theory of punishment and that the petitioner's conduct during incarceration clearly demonstrates his reformation. It is submitted that the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, good jail conduct, repeated release on parole on 14 occasions without any adverse incident, and the earned remission demonstrate that continued incarceration may not serve any fruitful purpose. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, and Rajkumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 9 SCC 598, learned counsel submits that although premature release/remission cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the case of an eligible convict is required to be considered fairly, objectively and in accordance with the governing statutory rules and the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that the competent authority is required to take into consideration the convict's post-conviction conduct, age, health, familial and socio-economic circumstances, earned remission, possibility of reformation and reintegration, and the likelihood of recurrence of the offence, rather than relying solely upon the nature or gravity of the offence. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, having failed to undertake such comprehensive consideration and having substantially relied upon the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, suffers from non-application of mind and 7 arbitrariness and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 9. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner has no vested or enforceable right to claim premature release merely because he has undergone the requisite period of imprisonment or has earned remission. It was contended that the petitioner was convicted for serious offences including double murder and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on two counts. Learned State counsel further submitted that the petitioner's case was duly considered by the competent authorities and, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the adverse opinion of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, and the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, and the likelihood of the petitioner's release adversely affecting society, his claim for premature release was not recommended. The State Government, after considering the said adverse reports and the provisions of Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, rejected the petitioner's application by order dated 05.01.2026. It was lastly submitted that remission or premature release is not a matter of right but lies within the discretion of the appropriate Government, to be exercised in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and upon consideration of the relevant circumstances. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or non- application of mind warranting interference by this Court. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 11. The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner was convicted under 8 Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (two counts), vide judgment dated 24.03.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.117/2009. The learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC on two counts, besides other sentences, all of which were directed to run concurrently. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, after undergoing more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, applied for premature release by way of remission of the remaining part of his sentence and that the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, submitted the requisite jail report in favour of consideration of his case. However, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, and the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, furnished adverse opinions. By the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, the respondent-State rejected the petitioner's claim for premature release by invoking Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, principally on the ground of the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police and observing that the petitioner was convicted in a case involving double murder and that his premature release would adversely affect society. 12. The record establishes that the petitioner remained in custody from 03.02.2009 to 30.06.2020 and thereafter has been continuously in custody since 26.01.2021 and, as on the date of consideration of his case, had undergone about 16 years and 06 months of actual imprisonment. It is further borne out from the record that, as on 09.02.2026, the petitioner had earned remission of 04 years, 08 months and 02 days and, consequently, had completed more than 21 9 years of imprisonment including earned remission. The record further indicates that the petitioner's conduct in jail remained satisfactory and that he had also availed parole on 14 occasions without any adverse complaint. His case was, accordingly, processed by the competent authorities for consideration of premature release under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. 13. Additionally, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide memo dated 13.06.2025, furnished his opinion in respect of the petitioner's premature release. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, thereafter submitted the jail report dated 22.07.2025 under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, recommending consideration of the petitioner's case for premature release. The case was also forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, and the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, for their respective opinions. However, both the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police furnished adverse opinions against the petitioner's premature release. 14. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, whereby the petitioner's application for premature release/remission of the remaining part of his sentence has been rejected by invoking Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, primarily on the basis of the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, and the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, and the observation that his release would adversely affect society, is legally sustainable. 15. Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, envisages 10 consideration of a prisoner's case for premature release on the basis of the reports and opinions of the competent authorities, including the learned Sessions Judge, the Jail Superintendent, the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate and the State Sentence Review Board. The power vested in the competent authority under Rule 358(7) (viii) is required to be exercised upon due and objective consideration of all relevant circumstances of the case. While considering a claim for premature release, the authority is required to take into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the period of actual incarceration, earned remission, conduct of the prisoner during custody, reports of the competent authorities, possibility of reformation and reintegration, likelihood of recurrence of the offence and the impact of release on society. Therefore, any decision rejecting a claim for premature release must disclose proper application of mind to the relevant factors, be supported by cogent reasons and remain in conformity with the applicable statutory provisions and settled principles of law. 16. The law governing premature release is well settled. In Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering a case for premature release, the competent authority is required to examine, inter alia, whether the prisoner has undergone reformation, whether there is any likelihood of recurrence of the crime, whether any useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration, and the socio-economic condition of the prisoner's family. It has been emphasized that the decision must be based upon relevant, objective and rational considerations and cannot rest solely upon the gravity or heinousness 11 of the offence. The competent authority is required to assess the prisoner's conduct and other relevant circumstances in a fair and meaningful manner while exercising the power of remission or premature release. 17. In Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the power of remission vests in the executive, its exercise is amenable to judicial review where the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, unreasonable or based on irrelevant considerations. The said principle applies with equal force to the exercise of statutory power under the remission rules. Likewise, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although premature release is not a matter of right, an eligible convict has a legal right to have his case considered fairly, objectively and in accordance with the applicable remission policy, and the competent authority is required to apply the relevant policy in a non-arbitrary manner. 18. Upon careful consideration of the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, this Court finds that the petitioner's application for premature release has been rejected primarily on the basis of the adverse opinions furnished by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, and the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, coupled with the observation that the petitioner was convicted in a case involving double murder and that his release would adversely affect society. However, the impugned order does not reflect any independent and meaningful consideration of the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, earned remission, satisfactory jail conduct, his having availed parole on 14 occasions without any adverse complaint, 12 the jail report, and other relevant circumstances governing premature release. The order also does not disclose any assessment as to whether there remains any fruitful purpose in continuing the petitioner's incarceration or whether there is any likelihood of recurrence of the offence. The impugned order, therefore, appears to have been passed mechanically, without due and objective application of mind to the relevant material and the principles governing consideration of premature release. 19. While the nature and gravity of the offence are undoubtedly relevant considerations in deciding a claim for premature release, they cannot constitute the sole basis for rejecting such a claim, particularly where the applicable statutory rules require consideration of several other relevant factors. The competent authority is under an obligation to objectively examine the prisoner's conduct during incarceration, the period of actual imprisonment undergone, earned remission, the prisoner's parole record, the reports and opinions of the competent authorities, and the prospects of reformation and rehabilitation. In the present case, the petitioner had undergone about 16 years and 06 months of actual imprisonment, had earned remission of 04 years, 08 months and 02 days, and had availed parole on 14 occasions without any adverse complaint. However, the impugned order does not disclose any meaningful consideration of these circumstances or any cogent reason as to why they were outweighed by the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. The order, therefore, fails to demonstrate a holistic, fair and objective consideration of the petitioner's case as contemplated under Rule 358 13 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. 20. This Court also finds that the petitioner was convicted in only one Sessions Trial, namely, Sessions Trial No.117/2009, arising out of a single criminal case, in which the learned trial Court recorded conviction under Section 302/149 IPC on two counts in respect of the death of two persons. However, the impugned order does not disclose that the respondents have invoked Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, which specifically applies to prisoners convicted in two or more cases of murder. Instead, the petitioner's claim has been rejected under Rule 358(7)(viii) primarily on the ground that the case involved double murder and that his release would adversely affect society. The mere fact that the petitioner suffered two convictions under Section 302/149 IPC in the same judgment arising out of the same Sessions Trial cannot, without examining the precise scope and applicability of the statutory provision, be treated as equivalent to conviction in two or more separate cases of murder. The authorities, therefore, were required to consider the petitioner's case in accordance with the correct interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of Rule 358, rather than treating the nature of the offence as determinative of his eligibility for premature release. 21. The fundamental philosophy underlying premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. A convict who has undergone substantial incarceration, maintained satisfactory conduct in prison, earned remission, and demonstrated the potential for reformation is entitled to fair, objective and meaningful consideration of his case in accordance with the governing statutory 14 provisions. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the petitioner has undergone about 16 years and 06 months of actual imprisonment, has earned remission of 04 years, 08 months and 02 days, maintained satisfactory conduct in jail, and was released on parole on 14 occasions without any adverse incident. The said circumstances are relevant indicators of the petitioner's post-conviction conduct and prospects of reformation. However, these relevant considerations do not appear to have received due and meaningful consideration while passing the impugned order dated 05.01.2026. 22. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned, fair and objective decision under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. The rejection of the petitioner's claim is substantially founded upon the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, and the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, as well as the gravity of the offence, without due consideration of the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, earned remission, satisfactory jail conduct, parole record and prospects of reformation. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. 23. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner's case, having arisen out of a single Sessions Trial arising from one criminal case, cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a double murder case, without proper consideration of the 15 relevant factors governing premature release under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. Consequently, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of premature release/remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case, subject to compliance with the applicable terms and conditions prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok