Salik Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Jail Department, Mahanadi

Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Shri R Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Hon'ble Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/05/2026

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN 20:58:34 +0530 2

2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 14.02.2026 passed by respondent No.1/State Government, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking premature release/remission of remaining jail sentence under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 has been rejected on the basis of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the nature of the offence, despite the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody since 24.03.2011 and has already undergone the requisite period of sentence including remission.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 passed by Respondent No. 1.

10.2 Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 passed by Respondent No. 1.

10.3 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release strictly in accordance with law.

10.4 Direct reconsideration within a time-bound period, preferably within 60 days.

10.5 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted also.”

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by judgment dated 24.03.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No.37/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3 Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.407/2011 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated

26.05.2017 affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.5930 preferred by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 18.04.2022. Since then, the petitioner has remained continuously in custody from 24.03.2011 onwards.

5. Further case of the petitioner is that after becoming eligible for consideration of premature release/remission upon completion of the requisite period of sentence including remission, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.05.2024 before respondent No.3/ Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg seeking grant of remission/premature release. The said application was forwarded along with favourable recommendation under prescribed Proforma ‘A’ and also with favourable opinion/no objection furnished by the learned trial Court vide communications dated 21.03.2025 and 29.05.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.3 forwarded the complete case of the petitioner along with all relevant documents to respondent No.2/Director General, Jail and Correctional Services for placing the matter before the State Sentence Review Board. However, respondent No.1, by the impugned order dated 14.02.2026, rejected the claim of the petitioner for premature release on the basis of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the nature of the offence, which has been assailed in the present writ petition. 4

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2025 SCC OnLine SC 482) and Laxman Naskar v. Union of India and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 595. He would further submit while considering an application remission/premature release, the competent authority is required to consider the relevant parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the conduct of the prisoner, possibility of repetition of offence, socio-economic condition of the family and whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continued incarceration. He would submit that in the present case the learned trial Court had already furnished favourable opinion/no objection and the jail authorities had also recommended the case of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody since 24.03.2011 and has already undergone substantial period of incarceration including remission, however, without assigning cogent reasons and merely on the basis of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the nature of offence, the application has been rejected mechanically. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any independent application of mind and, therefore, deserves to be quashed with a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submit that the petitioner stands convicted for a heinous offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and after due consideration of all 5 relevant aspects, the State Sentence Review Board did not find the case of the petitioner fit for grant of premature release/remission. He would further submit that remission is not a matter of right and the competent authority is empowered to take a decision keeping in view the gravity, nature and impact of the offence upon society. It is submitted that merely because the petitioner has remained in custody since 24.03.2011 and has undergone substantial period of incarceration, the same by itself does not confer any indefeasible right for premature release. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of all relevant materials and recommendations and, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. At this juncture, it would also be apposite to refer to Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which contemplates consideration of premature release/remission of life convicts who have undergone the prescribed period of sentence, subject to evaluation of their conduct, possibility of reformation and suitability for reintegration into society. The underlying object of the said provision is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely punitive. In the present case, the petitioner has admittedly remained in custody since 24.03.2011 and has undergone substantial period of incarceration including remission. His case was duly recommended by the Jail Superintendent under prescribed Proforma ‘A’. It is further evident that the learned trial Court had also furnished

9. 6 favourable opinion/no objection in favour of the petitioner. Apart from a bald reference to the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the nature of offence, no adverse material has been brought on record by the respondents demonstrating unsatisfactory jail conduct, likelihood of repetition of offence or any circumstance disentitling the petitioner from consideration for remission. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner’s claim in a mechanical manner runs contrary to the statutory scheme as well as the reformative principles governing grant of premature release/remission.

10. It is well settled that though remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary, such discretion is required to be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 626 has held that while considering premature release/remission, the competent authority is required to examine factors such as whether the offence affects society at large, the likelihood of recurrence of crime, whether the convict has lost the propensity to commit offence, and whether any fruitful purpose would be served by continued incarceration. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 161 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that orders relating to remission are amenable to judicial review where the exercise of power is arbitrary, mala fide, based on extraneous considerations or suffers from non-application of mind. Further, in State of Haryana and Others v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, it has been emphasized that the benefit of remission policy ought to be extended in a fair, consistent and non- 7 discriminatory manner keeping in view the reformative object underlying the policy of premature release. Reliance may also be placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, wherein it has been reiterated that premature release/remission cannot be denied mechanically merely on the basis of the nature of offence without evaluating the relevant factors governing reformation and rehabilitation of the convict. In the present case, despite the petitioner having remained in custody since 24.03.2011 and no adverse material having been brought on record regarding his jail conduct or likelihood of recurrence of offence, the impugned order does not reflect consideration of the aforesaid settled principles of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

11. The philosophy underlying premature release/remission is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. The object of the remission policy is to encourage reformation of prisoners and facilitate their reintegration into the mainstream of society after they have undergone substantial period of incarceration and exhibited satisfactory conduct. In the present case, the petitioner has remained in custody since 24.03.2011 and has already undergone the requisite period of sentence including remission. The material available on record demonstrates that his conduct in jail has remained satisfactory, which is also evident from the favourable recommendation made by the Jail Authorities as well as the no objection furnished by the learned trial Court. Once the relevant statutory requirements stand satisfied and no adverse material indicating likelihood of recurrence of offence or threat to society has been brought on record, denial of remission/premature 8 release merely on the basis of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the nature of offence amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and runs contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the reformative principles governing criminal jurisprudence.

12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that rejection of the petitioner’s claim for remission/premature release is founded merely upon the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the nature of offence without there being any cogent or substantive material adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner has remained in custody since

24.03.2011 and has already undergone substantial period of incarceration including remission. The favourable opinion/no objection furnished by the learned trial Court as well as the recommendation made by the Jail Authorities reflecting satisfactory conduct and eligibility of the petitioner have not been accorded due consideration by the respondent authorities. The impugned order does not disclose any independent application of mind nor does it assign any intelligible reason for discarding the favourable material available on record. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

13. Considering the long period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, who has remained in custody since 24.03.2011, his satisfactory jail conduct, favourable recommendation made by the Jail Authorities, positive opinion/no objection furnished by the learned trial Court and absence of any adverse material or statutory embargo 9 disentitling him from consideration of remission/premature release, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of grant of premature release under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The action of the respondent authorities in denying such benefit merely on the basis of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the nature of offence, without assigning cogent reasons and without proper consideration of the relevant parameters governing remission, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1974) 4 SCC 3.

14. In view of the foregoing discussions, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.1/State Government is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit remission/premature release to the petitioner under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. / corresponding provisions of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody since 24.03.2011 and has already undergone substantial period of incarceration including remission.

15. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice