Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

09.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.

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 14.02.2026 (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 stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 20.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in S.T. No. 25/2010, which conviction has been affirmed by this Court in CRA No. 826/2010 vide judgment dated 20.09.2017, and the Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 01.07.2019. The petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2010 and has undergone more than 19 years of incarceration including remission, with over 15 years of actual imprisonment, and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Durg. Further, upon becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, the competent authorities, including the learned Presiding Judge, the Jail Superintendent, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, have all rendered favourable opinions recommending the petitioner’s release, also taking note of his satisfactory conduct and his disciplined behavior during parole granted on six occasions. Despite such consistent and favourable recommendations and the petitioner fulfilling the statutory requirements, the respondent State has rejected the petitioner’s application for premature release vide impugned order dated 14.02.2026 solely on the ground of the gravity of the offence, without adverting to the mandatory considerations prescribed under amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968; that the impugned order is ex facie arbitrary, non-speaking and bereft of cogent reasons, inasmuch as it fails to reflect any application of mind to relevant factors such as the petitioner’s long period of incarceration, reformation, conduct, and the favourable reports of all concerned authorities, and instead relies upon an irrelevant and solitary consideration.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under the statutory framework, particularly Rule 358 and Section 432 Cr.P.C. (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the State is obligated to record a reasoned and logical satisfaction while accepting or rejecting recommendations of the Sentence Review Board, which requirement has been completely disregarded in the present case. The impugned order thus suffers from arbitrariness, non- application of mind and consideration of irrelevant factors while ignoring relevant material, thereby warranting interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has been convicted for a grave and heinous offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to a judgment of conviction which has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission and its adverse impact on society at large, the case of the petitioner does not deserve indulgence by way of premature release. Further, although certain authorities may have expressed favourable opinions, the ultimate discretion vests with the State Government which is required to take an over