Jain Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Additional Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government of Chhat

Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General. MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 12-05-2026

1. Heard Ms. Aditi Shinghvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 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 submits that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for conviction under Section 302 of IPC, 1860, and has already served approximately 16 years and 1 month of actual imprisonment and over 19 years including remission, since

01.04.2010, thereby becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. It is submitted that the learned Presiding Judge, vide memo dated 11.06.2024 (received in earlier application), (ANNEXURE P/2), expressed no objection to the grant of remission, noting the petitioner’s good conduct and regular 3 receipt of remissions. The petitioner has maintained satisfactory conduct in jail, has never misused parole, and has complied with all conditions when granted. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order dated 22.03.2026, rejecting the application, is arbitrary, non- speaking, and devoid of application of mind, as it merely relies on the gravity of the offence, without considering other mandatory factors including conduct in jail, parole record, rehabilitation, and societal impact.

4. It is 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 the Court, • report of the Collector and Superintendent of Police, and • jail record regarding conduct and behavior of the pris- oner. However, the impugned order does not reflect consideration of these mandatory parameters. It is argued that the authorities have failed to record cogent and logical reasons as required under Rule 358(7), and the rejection is based solely on the seriousness of the offence, which by itself cannot be the sole ground once eligibility criteria are fulfilled. Learned counsel emphasizes that the power under Section 432 Cr.P.C. / corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is wide but must be exercised on objective and rational grounds, with proper recording of subjective satisfaction, which is absent in the present case. 4 In view of the above, it is prayed that this Court may quash the impugned order dated 22.03.2026; direct the respondent State to premature release the petitioner, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner stands convicted for a heinous offence of murder of his wife, involving burning of the body and he also murdered her unborn child, thus, the gravity of the offence warrants strict scrutiny in matters of premature release. Premature release/remission is not a vested right but a discretionary relief; mere completion of the qualifying period does not entitle the petitioner to release. He further submitted that the the petitioner’s case was duly considered by the State Sentence Review Board, and the State Government has passed the impugned order after due application of mind. The authorities have complied with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, considering relevant factors including nature of offence and reports of district authorities. The gravity of the offence and its societal impact are valid and sufficient grounds for rejection of premature release. The reports of the Collector and Superintendent of Police, though recommendatory, are relevant inputs and have been duly considered. There is no procedural illegality; remission proceedings are administrative in nature and do not require strict adherence to adversarial procedures. The impugned order contains adequate reasoning, and cannot be termed arbitrary merely for being brief. Judicial review in such matters is limited, and no ground is 5 made out for interference. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record.

7. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Section 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual / Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which contemplates consideration of premature release of life convicts who have undergone the prescribed period of sentence, subject to assessment of their conduct, reformation, and overall suitability for reintegration into society. The said provision embodies the reformative approach of penology and mandates that eligible prisoners be considered fairly and objectively. In the present case, the Petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria inasmuch as he has completed more than the requisite period of incarceration and has maintained good conduct, as also reflected from the recommendation of the jail authorities. The adverse opinion of the District Magistrate, in absence of supporting material, cannot override the statutory scheme and the reformative intent underlying the said provision.

8. It is well settled that though remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 626, has laid down that while considering premature release, authorities must evaluate factors such as whether the offence affects society at large, the likelihood of recurrence, and the potential for 6 the convict’s reformation. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 161 it has been held that orders relating to remission are subject to judicial review if they are arbitrary, mala fide, or based on irrelevant considerations. Further, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the benefit of remission policy must be extended in a fair and consistent manner.

9. The philosophy underlying premature release is reformative rather than retributive. Long incarceration coupled with demonstrated good conduct and positive reports from competent authorities entitles a prisoner to objective and fair consideration under the applicable Rules. Once the statutory bar is found inapplicable, and the relevant authorities have not expressed any adverse opinion, denial of premature release on a misconceived interpretation of the Rule amounts to arbitrariness and offends the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim is based on mere conjectures and not on any cogent material. The positive opinion of the sentencing Court and recommendation of the jail authorities have not been assigned due weightage. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

11. Considering his long period of incarceration, satisfactory conduct, favorable opinions of the competent authorities and absence of any statutory embargo, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of premature release. The action of the respondent authorities in 7 denying such benefit on an erroneous interpretation of the Rule is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as explained in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3.

12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the competent authority 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 usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil