Remission of sentence, though discretionary, must be exercised fairly and non-arbitrarily. Rejection based on conjectures without objective material, while ignoring positive recommendations from jail authorities and the sentencing court, is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Order on Board

Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.05.08 17:10:09 +0530

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Dr. Saurabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State.

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 to set aside the impugned order 22-03-2026 passed by the Respondent no.2 (Annexure P/1) and kindly grant the remission prescribed under section 473 of the BNSS/432(2) of the Cr.P.C.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent's authority to proceed the petitioner's matter for grant of remission under section 432(2) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and take decision accordingly afresh for grant of remission to the petitioner within stipulated time and disposed off the petition with that directions as passed in similar matter by this Hon'ble Court in WP(Cr.)No. 161/2026 Gopal Ram Versus State of C.G. order dated 24-03-2026 ANNEXURE P/8.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 20 years including remission and during the entire period of incarceration his conduct has remained satisfactory. He would further submit that the petitioner has continuously performed the work assigned to him in jail honestly and dutifully and has cooperated in maintaining peace and discipline inside the jail. He would next submit that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg while forwarding the case of the petitioner has given positive recommendation for grant of remission. He would further submit that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon, in exercise of powers under Section 432 (2) of the Cr.P.C., has also furnished a detailed positive opinion dated 08-05-2024 specifically observing that the petitioner does not appear capable of committing such offence again and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail any further. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has also taken into consideration the satisfactory jail conduct of the petitioner, the long period of incarceration already undergone by him and the adverse effect of continued detention upon the livelihood of his family members while recommending remission in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel would further argue that despite the aforesaid positive recommendations made by the Jail Authorities as well as the learned Sessions Court, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the basis of a negative opinion submitted by the Superintendent of Police founded upon the opinion of the concerned SHO. He would submit that the impugned order dated 22-03-2026 is wholly arbitrary, mechanical and non-speaking inasmuch as no independent reasons have been assigned by the competent authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for remission. It is contended that the impugned order merely reproduces that the opinion of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police is negative and, on that basis alone, rejects the petitioner’s case without considering the relevant materials available on record. Learned counsel would further submit that while exercising powers under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., the competent authority is required