1 CGHC010327672026 2026:CGHC:37778-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 496 of 2026 Banshi Nishad S/o Jakala Nishad Aged About 42 Years R/o- Ahiwara, Ps- Nandini, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) Presently In Jagdalpur Central Jail, Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.), Since In Jail Through His Cousin Brother Mohan Nishad, S/o- Lalaram Nishad Aged About 41 Years, R/o- Ward No. 04, Bilaspur Road, Ganga Nagar, Bhanpuri, Birgaon, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Additional Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Services) Jail Department, Jail Headquarters, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent Jagdalpur Central Jail, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Collector, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ---- 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 22:12:19 +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, who is presently undergoing life imprisonment at Jagdalpur Central Jail, challenging the order dated 10.04.2026 whereby his application for remission/premature release has been rejected by the respondent authorities. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for the following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 10.04.2026 (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.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has undergone more than 18 years of actual imprisonment and more than 24 years including remission and is eligible for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It is 3 submitted that the learned Presiding Judge as well as the Jail Superintendent have given favourable opinions for his premature release, considering his conduct and the period of incarceration. However, the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 has rejected his claim primarily on the basis of the gravity of the offence, alleged jail offences and the pending criminal case, without properly considering the relevant materials on record. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the jail offences have already been dealt with and punished under the Prison Rules, while the pending case under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act has not resulted in any conviction. It is contended that the impugned order does not disclose proper application of mind or record reasonable and logical reasons as required under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the petitioner be granted the benefit of premature release/remission in accordance with law. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of remission or premature release in view of his criminal antecedents and conduct during incarceration. It is submitted that during his jail tenure, the petitioner was involved in 11 jail offences, and even while on parole, he was again found involved in an offence under the Excise Act, which demonstrates that he has not reformed and continues to have a tendency to commit offences. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that, considering the aforesaid adverse conduct, criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is 4 a habitual offender, the State Sentence Review Board and the competent authorities rightly did not recommend his premature release. Therefore, after considering the relevant reports and surrounding circumstances, the petitioner's application for remission was rightly rejected, and the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we find that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and was involved in several jail offences during his incarceration. It is also not in dispute that during the period when he was released on parole, he was again involved in an offence under the Excise Act. Having regard to the aforesaid conduct and the overall circumstances of the case, we do not find any sufficient ground to direct the release of the petitioner on remission. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner from repeating his prayer for premature release/remission in accordance with law, if any fresh ground or change in circumstances arises and as and when occasion so arises. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved