1 2026:CGHC:19-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 650 of 2025 Alakh Ram S/o Shri Tirith Ram @ Tirath Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sonesilli, Navapara Raipur, C.G. Presently R/o Laxmi Nagar, Sankara, P.S. Magarlod, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Department of Law, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent of Jail Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director General of Police Prison And Correctional Services, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra,, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.02 16:53:35 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 as the same is against the settled principles of Law. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the application of the petitioner under section 432 of Cr.P.C. by releasing the petitioner after remission as he completed about 20 years of jail sentence as the sentences were directed to be run concurrently, to meet the ends of justice. 10.3 That, or in alternate the matter may be remitted back to the respondent authorities for fresh consideration in light of judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Somesh @ Sonu Thakur, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 3. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the 3 application preferred under Section 473(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) has been rejected, and consequently, the prayer for remission of sentence made by the petitioner has been disallowed, despite positive recommendations in his favour by the learned trial Judge as well as the Jail Authorities. It is further averred that the petitioner has almost completed 20 years of actual incarceration. 4. Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner along with 15 other co-accused was tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 460, 323/149 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 38/2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Raipur, the petitioner and other co-accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment (thrice) under Section 302/149 IPC, 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 460 IPC, along with sentences under Sections 148, 323/149 and 342 IPC. It is submitted that all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. Mr. Dembra further submits that the petitioner along with seven other co-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 315/2012 before this Court, while the remaining eight co-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 835/2011. This Court vide judgment dated 08.11.2017 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and 4 similarly situated co-accused; however, the appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 835/2011 preferred by the other co-accused was allowed. It is next submitted that the petitioner preferred an application seeking remission of sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned trial Court, upon due consideration, furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner vide memo dated 15.04.2024. The Jail Authorities have also submitted the petitioner’s conduct and relevant details in the prescribed format. Despite the aforesaid positive recommendations by the trial Court and Jail Authorities, the respondent No.1 arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s application for remission vide impugned order dated 05.05.2025. 6. It is contended by Mr. Dembra that the rejection of the petitioner’s application is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India, as well as by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 339/2023 (Somesh @ Sonu Thakur vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) decided on 16.08.2023. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the law relating to consideration of an application under Section 432 Cr.P.C. is well settled, which mandates that such application must be considered on its own merits, after taking into account the entire factual matrix of the case. 5 7. Mr. Dembra submits that the impugned order is bereft of adequate reasons, rendering it arbitrary, and hence the matter deserves to be remitted back for fresh consideration and for passing a reasoned order. It is also contended that the petitioner is a poor person and has already undergone almost 20 years of incarceration, and therefore, the benefit of remission ought to have been granted by the State authorities. Since the learned trial Court had directed that all sentences shall run concurrently, the continued incarceration of the petitioner beyond 20 years is illegal and unjustified. Lastly, learned counsel submits that considering the long period of incarceration, advanced age of the petitioner, and humanitarian grounds, the petitioner deserves to be released by granting him the benefit of remission of sentence. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, supports the impugned order and submits that the competent authority has passed the same after due consideration of the relevant facts and record. He contends that no case for grant of remission is made out and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition, while opposing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the impugned order along with the pleadings and the material available on record. 6 10. From perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P/1), it transpires that the petitioner–convict Alakhram was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 (three counts), 460, 323/149 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 17.10.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 38/2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariaband (Chhattisgarh), and that he is presently undergoing the said sentence in Central Jail, Raipur. 11. It further emerges from the impugned order that upon consideration of the proposal received from the Jail Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, it was noted that the petitioner, along with other co- convicts, had caused the death of three persons in furtherance of a common object arising out of a family land dispute. The Law Department, after tendering its opinion, opined that in view of sub- rule (3)(g)(2) of Rule 358 of the Jail Manual, prisoners undergoing life imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 149 IPC are not entitled to consideration for remission. On the said premise, it was concluded that the petitioner is not eligible for remission at the present stage. 12. On the aforesaid basis and by invoking powers under Section 473(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and while referring to the opinions of the Presiding Judge, Jail Superintendent, Director General of Prisons and the Law Department, as well as the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme 7 Court and this Court, the State Government declined to remit the remaining part of the petitioner’s sentence. 13. Upon thoughtful consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on an anxious scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition warranting interference. It is undisputed that the petitioner stands convicted for the heinous offence of murder of three persons, committed in furtherance of a common object, arising out of a family land dispute, and has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment on three counts under Section 302/149 of the IPC, in addition to other sentences. The nature and gravity of the offence, therefore, undoubtedly fall within the category of serious and grave crimes having a deep impact on societal order. 14. It is well settled that remission of sentence is not a matter of right, but rests within the domain of the executive, to be exercised in accordance with statutory provisions, applicable rules and settled legal principles. The power of judicial review in such matters is limited to examining whether the decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness, perversity, mala fides or non-application of mind. The Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the competent authority while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the present case, the impugned order clearly reflects that the 8 competent authority has taken into consideration the relevant factors, including the nature of offence, the manner of commission of crime, the opinion of the Law Department, and the applicable provisions of the Jail Manual. The reliance placed on sub-rule (3) (g)(2) of Rule 358 of the Jail Manual, which disentitles prisoners convicted for offences under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC from consideration for remission at the present stage, cannot be said to be arbitrary or dehors the statutory framework. 16. Though the learned trial Court and the Jail Authorities have furnished favourable recommendations, such opinions are advisory in nature and do not bind the State Government. The final decision rests with the competent authority, which is required to balance individual considerations with societal interest. Considering that the petitioner has been convicted of triple murder, this Court is of the opinion that the authority was justified in adopting a cautious and restrictive approach while considering the prayer for remission. 17. The mere fact that the sentences were directed to run concurrently or that the petitioner has undergone incarceration of about 20 years does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to remission, particularly in cases involving multiple murders. Humanitarian considerations, though relevant, cannot eclipse the seriousness of the crime and the need to uphold public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. 9 18. This Court also finds that the impugned order cannot be said to be unreasoned or mechanical. The competent authority has applied its mind to the relevant materials, opinions and legal provisions before arriving at the decision. In such circumstances, interference by this Court would amount to substituting its own opinion for that of the executive authority, which is impermissible in law. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu