Lakhan Patre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard 2 Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 05.01.2026 (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 was convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide judgment dated 01.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District–Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 45/2010. The conviction was upheld by this Hon'ble Court in CRA No. 775/2011 vide judgment dated 15.07.2015. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2019 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8969/2015.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, along with four other co-accused persons, namely, Girwar Patre, Anand Das Patre, Sushila Bai Patre and Deepak Bai, was tried in Sessions Case No. 45/2010 and was convicted vide judgment dated 01.10.2011. The petitioner has remained in custody since 29.06.2010 and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Durg. It is submitted that as on 10.06.2025, the petitioner had undergone more than 20 3 years, 1 month and 16 days of sentence, including remission (with 14 years, 11 months and 12 days of actual imprisonment), and at present has completed 15 years, 8 months and 2 days of actual imprisonment. During the entire period of incarceration, the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory, and he has also been released on parole on nine occasions, during which his conduct was found to be satisfactory.

5. Learned counsel further contended that upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, an opinion was sought from the learned Presiding Judge. The learned Presiding Judge, vide communication dated

25.01.2025, opined that the Court has no objection if the petitioner is granted the benefit of remission. She further submitted that the petitioner's application for premature release, along with Form-A, the nominal roll and other relevant documents, was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the competent authorities for consideration under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules,

1968. The Jail Superintendent found the conduct of the petitioner to be satisfactory and recommended his release. It is further submitted that the petitioner was released on parole on nine occasions, and on every such occasion, his conduct remained satisfactory and he duly complied with the conditions imposed upon him.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's application for premature release was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 05.01.2026 on the ground that his release would have a negative impact on society and in view of the adverse opinions furnished by the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate. She further contended that under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, the 4 State Sentence Review Board is required to undertake an enquiry on the parameters prescribed under sub-rule (4) and consider all relevant factors under sub-rule (7), including the opinion of the Court, the report of the Collector, and the jail report regarding the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner. It is further submitted that although the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation of the Board, any order rejecting remission must contain reasonable and logical reasons. However, in the present case, the impugned order is devoid of cogent reasons and has been passed without proper application of mind.

7. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, wherein it has been held that the opinions of local residents and witnesses cannot by themselves determine whether a convict would be a danger to society upon release and that relevant considerations such as the reformation of the prisoner and the reports of the jail authorities must be duly examined. She further submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and non- speaking in nature. Apart from relying upon the adverse opinions of the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate regarding the alleged impact of the petitioner's release on society, the respondent authorities have failed to consider the relevant factors, namely the long period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, his satisfactory conduct in jail, his release on parole on nine occasions without any misuse, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent, and the fact that three co-accused persons have already been granted the benefit of remission. The impugned order, therefore, does not reflect proper application of mind and is bereft of cogent and logical reasons. 5

8. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have taken into account irrelevant considerations while ignoring material and relevant circumstances, particularly the petitioner's satisfactory conduct in jail, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent, and the fact that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted remission. The powers under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are required to be exercised upon due consideration of all relevant factors, and the recording of proper subjective satisfaction is a sine qua non for the exercise of such powers. She also submitted that since the petitioner is presently in judicial custody, he has duly authorized his friend to institute and prosecute the present petition on his behalf.

9. Lastly, learned counsel submits that out of the five persons convicted in the same case, three co-accused persons, namely, Anand Das Patre, Sushila Bai Patre and Deepak Bai, have already been granted the benefit of remission by the State vide order dated 05.01.2026 and have been released. The petitioner, therefore, seeks parity and submits that the rejection of his claim for premature release, despite his satisfactory jail conduct, favourable recommendations and eligibility under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law.

10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is submitted that premature release or remission is not a matter of right and mere completion of the qualifying period of sentence does not automatically entitle a convict to 6 be released. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner's case was duly considered by the State Sentence Review Board and thereafter by the State Government, which passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 after taking into consideration the relevant materials placed before it, including the adverse reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. It is further submitted that the competent authority found that the petitioner's release would have a negative impact on society and, therefore, rejected his application for premature release. It is argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

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

12. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide judgment dated 01.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District–Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 45/2010. The conviction was upheld by this Hon'ble Court in CRA No. 775/2011 vide judgment dated 15.07.2015. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2019 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8969/2015.

13. The record further reveals that the petitioner has remained in custody since 29.06.2010 and, as on 10.06.2025, had undergone more than 20 years, 1 month and 16 days of sentence, including remission. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has completed more than 14 years of actual imprisonment 7 and, at present, has undergone 15 years, 8 months and 2 days of actual imprisonment. The custody certificate and jail records further indicate that the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory throughout his incarceration. The records also reveal that the petitioner was released on parole on nine occasions, and his conduct during each such release was found to be satisfactory.

14. It is also borne out from the record that upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, an opinion was sought from the learned Presiding Judge. The learned Presiding Judge, vide communication dated 25.01.2025, opined that the Court has no objection if the petitioner is granted remission of sentence. It is further evident from the record that the Jail Superintendent recommended the petitioner's case for premature release after recording his conduct to be satisfactory. The petitioner was also released on parole on nine occasions, and there is no allegation of misuse of liberty or violation of any parole condition. On each such occasion, the petitioner surrendered before the authorities within the prescribed time and his conduct remained satisfactory.

15. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for premature release by order dated

05.01.2026 is sustainable in law.

16. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The Rule contemplates consideration of the case of an eligible life convict by the State Sentence Review Board after undertaking an enquiry on the parameters prescribed under sub-rule (4) and examining various relevant factors, including the prisoner's conduct and behaviour in jail, the opinion of the sentencing Court, the reports of the 8 Collector and Superintendent of Police, and other circumstances having a bearing on his premature release. The Rule further provides that while the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation of the Board, any order rejecting such recommendation must disclose reasonable and logical reasons.

17. The law relating to premature release and remission is no longer res integra. In Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering premature release, the competent authority is required to examine factors such as the possibility of recurrence of crime, the potential of the prisoner for reformation and rehabilitation, and whether his continued incarceration serves any useful purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the opinions of local residents and witnesses cannot, by themselves, constitute determinative factors for denying premature release and that due weightage must be accorded to the reports regarding the prisoner's conduct, behaviour and reformation while in custody.

18. In Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that orders relating to remission are subject to judicial review and may be interfered with where the decision- making process is arbitrary, mala fide or based upon irrelevant considerations. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, it was emphasized that remission policies are required to be implemented in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner. In the present case, the impugned order reveals that while rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release, the respondent authorities have primarily relied upon the adverse opinions of the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate 9 without adequately considering the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent, the petitioner's satisfactory conduct during incarceration and parole, and the other relevant factors mandated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968.

19. Upon careful scrutiny of the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, this Court finds that the petitioner's claim has been rejected mainly on the ground that his release would have a negative impact on society and on the basis of the adverse opinions furnished by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. However, the impugned order does not reflect any meaningful consideration of several relevant circumstances, namely, the petitioner's long period of incarceration, his satisfactory conduct in jail, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent, the fact that he was released on parole on nine occasions without any adverse incident, the grant of remission to three similarly placed co-accused persons, and his overall reformation during imprisonment. The order, therefore, does not disclose due application of mind to the relevant factors required to be considered under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968.

20. The gravity of the offence undoubtedly constitutes a relevant factor while considering premature release. Nevertheless, once a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration under the applicable Rules, the competent authority is required to undertake a holistic assessment of all relevant factors. In the present case, the impugned order merely records that the petitioner's release would have a negative impact on society on the basis of the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. However, it does 10 not disclose why the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent, the petitioner's satisfactory conduct during incarceration, his release on parole on nine occasions without any adverse incident, and the grant of remission to three similarly placed co- accused persons were found insufficient or how the adverse recommendations outweighed these positive indicators of reform and rehabilitation.

21. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that three co-accused persons, namely, Anand Das Patre, Sushila Bai Patre and Deepak Bai, who were convicted in the same case and under similar circumstances, have already been granted the benefit of remission by the State vide order dated 05.01.2026 and have been released. Though the principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically, it nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance which ought to have been taken into consideration by the authorities while evaluating the petitioner's claim for premature release.

22. The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than retributive. Therefore, while considering a prisoner's case, the competent authority is required to give due weight to the period of incarceration, jail conduct and overall reformation. These relevant factors, in the opinion of this Court, deserved proper consideration while deciding the petitioner's claim for premature release.

23. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated

05.01.2026 does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned decision as contemplated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The order fails to demonstrate due consideration of the relevant factors, including 11 the petitioner's satisfactory jail conduct, favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, recommendation of the Jail Superintendent and other material circumstances, and therefore cannot be sustained in law.

24. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for premature release/remission is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with the usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok