Remission and premature release, while discretionary, must be granted based on a fair, objective, and non-arbitrary assessment of the prisoner's conduct and reformation, rather than solely on the nature of the offense or unsupported negative opinions.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased quash the order dated 22.03.2026 (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 submitted that the petitioner was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 (two counts) and 307 IPC and vide judgment dated 31.08.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 54/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G), the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, 07 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1105/2013 before this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2018 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 12529/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2021. She further submitted that the petitioner petitioner is in jail since 02.06.2010 and is presently serving his life imprisonment at Raipur Central Jail and has completed a total of more than 15 years 11 months of actual imprisonment as in April 2026 (more than 20 years imprisonment including remission). After the petitioner become eligible for consideration for premature released under the provisions of CG Prison Rules an opinion was sought from the Presiding Judge. The learned Presiding Judge vide its memo dated 29.06.2024 (sought in the earlier application) has given an opinion that the Learned Court has no objection if the petitioner is granted remission of sentence. Thereafter the petitioner made an application before the Prison Authorities and requested that since he has completed more than 14 years of imprisonment, he may be given the benefit of pre-mature release. Vide letter dated 25.07.2025 the application was sent by the respondent No. 03 to the respondent No. 04 which was to be forwarded to the respondent No. 02. A similar letter was also sent to respondent No. 02 vide letter dated 19.11.2025. She contended that the petitioner has never availed the benefit of parole and that the conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory in jail, however, the State authorities have vide the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence and had committed murder of two persons and caused injury to one person, and since a negative opinion has been given by the Superintendent of Police concerned and District Magistrate, that his release would give a negative impact on society, the petitioner cannot be pre-maturely released.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, the State Sentence Review Board is required to consider multiple relevant factors, including:

• opinion of th