Jay Jaiswal @ Gudda Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/07/2026

1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/ respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal;

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set aside the order dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued/ passed by the respondent No.2;

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner remission under section 473 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and to release the petitioner by granting remission of rest part of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated

30.04.2012 (Annexure P/3) passed by the 3 Learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Judge, District Bilaspur (CG) in Session Trial No. 169/2010; and

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.169/2010, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302 and 302/149 IPC along with other sentences, all of which were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner is presently lodged in the Central Jail, Bilaspur.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for different spells since the year 2010 and, as on 24.06.2025, had undergone approximately 14 years and 11 months of actual imprisonment. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earned remission of 4 years, 1 month and 18 days, and thus had completed more than 19 years of sentence including earned remission. The petitioner has maintained satisfactory conduct throughout his incarceration and has become eligible for consideration of premature release in accordance with the applicable remission policy.

5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this 4 Court by filing W.P.(Cr.) No.483 of 2024, wherein this Court, by order dated 05.05.2025, directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application for premature release and further directed the competent authorities to consider the same in accordance with the amended provisions of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's wife submitted an application on 16.05.2025, followed by the petitioner's own application dated 24.06.2025 seeking remission of the remaining part of his sentence.

6. It is further submitted that while processing the petitioner's case, the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide communication dated

26.05.2025, expressed no objection to the petitioner's premature release and opined that it would be appropriate to grant such benefit. Likewise, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur and other competent authorities forwarded the petitioner's case with favourable recommendations. Despite these positive recommendations, the respondent-State rejected the petitioner's claim for premature release by order dated 12.12.2025. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order proceeds on the erroneous assumption that the petitioner is covered by Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, treating him as a prisoner convicted in two or more cases of murder, whereas, in fact, the petitioner has been convicted in only one Sessions Trial arising out of one criminal case, though two persons unfortunately lost their lives in the same incident. It is submitted that the expression "convicted in two 5 or more cases of murder" cannot be equated with conviction in a single case involving more than one homicide, and therefore the very foundation of the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

7. Learned counsel further submits that in the earlier proceedings before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.483 of 2024, the State itself had submitted that after the amendment of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, the petitioner's case would be considered in accordance with the amended Rules upon submission of a fresh application. However, after directing the petitioner to undergo the entire process afresh, the respondent-State adopted an altogether inconsistent stand by invoking Rule 358(6)(ix), despite the petitioner not falling within the category contemplated therein. Such a change of stand, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and contrary to the record. It is also contended that although the respondents have attempted to justify the impugned order by relying upon the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the alleged gravity of the offence, the impugned order itself does not disclose any independent consideration of the petitioner's post-conviction conduct, jail record, earned remission, favourable recommendations of the competent authorities or the principles governing premature release. The respondents cannot supplement fresh reasons through the return when such reasons do not find place in the impugned order itself.

8. Learned counsel submits that the object of premature release is founded upon the reformative theory of punishment. The petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail, earned substantial remission and has 6 secured favourable recommendations from the Presiding Judge, the Jail Superintendent and the District Magistrate. It is submitted that these relevant considerations have been completely ignored by the respondent-State while rejecting the petitioner's application. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, and other judgments governing premature release, learned counsel submits that although remission is not a matter of absolute right, every eligible prisoner possesses a valuable right to have his case considered fairly, objectively and in accordance with the applicable statutory rules and settled legal principles. It is submitted that the impugned order fails to satisfy these requirements and is therefore liable to be set aside.

9. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable or vested right to claim premature release under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the petitioner was convicted for serious and heinous offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act,

1959. Learned State counsel further submitted that, upon consideration of the petitioner's application, the State Sentence Review Board recommended against his premature release, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the fact that the petitioner had committed double murder, and the likelihood of his release adversely affecting society. It 7 was further argued that the State Government, after considering the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board as well as the provisions contained in Rules 358(6)(ix) and 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, rightly rejected the petitioner's application by order dated 12.12.2025. It was also contended that remission or premature release is not a matter of right but rests within the discretion of the State Government, which is required to consider each case on its own facts and in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

11. The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, vide judgment dated

30.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.169/2010. The learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life along with other sentences, all of which were directed to run concurrently.

12. The record establishes that the petitioner remained in custody during different spells from 09.06.2010 onwards and, as on 24.06.2025, had undergone about 14 years and 11 months of actual imprisonment. It is further borne out from the record that the petitioner had earned 8 remission of 4 years, 1 month and 18 days and, consequently, had completed more than 19 years of imprisonment including earned remission. The record further indicates that the petitioner's conduct in jail has remained satisfactory, and his case was accordingly processed by the competent authorities for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968.

13. Additionally, the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide communication dated 26.05.2025, expressed no objection to the petitioner's premature release and opined that it would be appropriate to grant him the benefit of remission. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, and the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, also forwarded the petitioner's case with favourable recommendations in accordance with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, for consideration by the competent authorities.

14. The sole question for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for premature release by order dated 12.12.2025 is sustainable in law.

15. Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, contemplates a comprehensive consideration of a prisoner's case for premature release by taking into account, inter alia, the prisoner's conduct in jail, the opinion of the sentencing Court, the recommendations of the Jail Superintendent, the District Magistrate and other competent authorities, as well as the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. The discretion vested in the State Government under Rule 358(7)(viii) is 9 required to be exercised on an objective consideration of all relevant factors, and any order rejecting a claim for premature release must disclose cogent, reasonable and legally sustainable grounds.

16. The law on premature release is well settled. In Laxman Naskar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering remission, the competent authority must examine whether the prisoner has undergone reformation, whether there exists any likelihood of recurrence of crime, and whether any useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration. The decision must be founded upon an objective evaluation of all relevant circumstances and not merely on the gravity of the offence or isolated adverse opinions.

17. In Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the power of remission vests in the executive, its exercise is amenable to judicial review where the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, unreasonable or based on irrelevant considerations. Likewise, in Jagdish (supra), the Apex Court emphasized that while premature release is not a matter of right, every eligible convict has a right to fair, objective and non-discriminatory consideration of his case in accordance with the applicable remission policy, and where a more liberal policy is in force on the date of consideration, the benefit thereof should ordinarily be extended to the convict.

18. Upon careful scrutiny of the impugned order dated 12.12.2025, this Court finds that the petitioner's application for premature release has 10 been rejected primarily on the ground that he is allegedly covered by Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 and on the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. The impugned order, however, does not disclose any meaningful consideration of the petitioner's satisfactory jail conduct, the favourable opinion expressed by the learned Sessions Judge, the recommendations of the Jail Superintendent and the District Magistrate, the substantial period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, or the other relevant factors governing premature release. The order, therefore, reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion without due application of mind to the material circumstances of the case.

19. While the gravity and nature of the offence are undoubtedly relevant considerations in deciding a claim for premature release, they cannot be the sole determinative factors once a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration under the applicable statutory provisions. The competent authority is required to undertake a holistic evaluation of all relevant circumstances, including the prisoner's conduct during incarceration, the opinion of the sentencing Court, the recommendations of the Jail Superintendent and the District Magistrate, the period of imprisonment already undergone and the possibility of reformation and reintegration into society. The impugned order, however, does not disclose any reasons as to why these favourable factors were outweighed by the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board or why the petitioner's case was found unfit for premature release despite the positive material available on record.

20. This Court also finds that the petitioner had specifically pleaded that he 11 was convicted in a single Sessions Trial arising out of one criminal case and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, applicable to prisoners convicted in two or more cases of murder, were not attracted. Despite the said specific contention, the respondents have proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had committed "double murder" without recording any finding as to how such conviction could be construed as conviction in two or more murder cases within the meaning of the aforesaid Rule. The authorities were, therefore, required to examine the petitioner's case on the correct interpretation of the statutory provision, which they failed to do.

21. The fundamental philosophy governing premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. A convict who has undergone substantial incarceration, maintained satisfactory jail conduct and demonstrated the potential for reformation is entitled to an objective and meaningful consideration of his case in accordance with the governing statutory provisions.

22. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated

12.12.2025 does not satisfy the legal requirement of a reasoned and objective decision under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.

23. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated

12.12.2025 rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release is 12 hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, as he was convicted in a single Sessions Trial arising out of one criminal case. Consequently, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case, subject to compliance with the applicable terms and conditions prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice