Uttam Kumar Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Judgment

4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Services), Jail Department , Jail Headquarters, Sector -19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) Jail Superintendent, Raipur Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) Collector , Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner For Respondent/State : : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19 . 06 .202 6

1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 11.05.2026 (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 stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated

18.09.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Case No. 85/2011. The said conviction was affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in CRA No. 971/2012 vide judgment dated 10.09.2018. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed vide order dated

16.05.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 10489/2019.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted on the allegation that he caused the death of his wife by throttling and thereafter attempted to cause disappearance of evidence by pouring kerosene and setting the body on fire. The petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail, Raipur and has undergone approximately 14 years and 09 months of actual 3 imprisonment and more than 19 years of sentence including remission. The petitioner has remained in custody since 13.09.2011. She also submits that upon the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration of premature release under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, an opinion was sought from the Presiding Judge. Vide communication dated 17.09.2025, the learned Presiding Judge observed that the petitioner had earned regular remissions on account of good conduct and expressed no objection to the petitioner being granted the benefit of remission.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter an application in Form-A under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968 was forwarded by the jail authorities vide communication dated 27.09.2025 for consideration by the competent authorities. The State authorities, by the impugned order dated 11.05.2026, rejected the petitioner's claim for premature release solely on the ground that he had committed a serious offence and concurred with the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been supplied with the reports/opinions of the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund despite seeking the same under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, the State Sentence Review Board is required to examine the parameters prescribed under sub-rule (4) of Rule 358, one of which is the opinion of the concerned Collector and Superintendent of Police. It is further 4 submitted that clause (iii) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 358 mandates consideration of all relevant aspects, including the opinion of the Court, the report of the Collector and the jail report regarding the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner. Clause (vii) of sub-rule (7) further provides that although the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation of the Board, any order of rejection must be supported by reasonable and cogent reasons.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 was held that objections of local residents or witnesses cannot by themselves determine whether a convict would be a danger to society upon release and that the Government is required to consider the present conduct, reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoner rather than merely relying upon past events.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the impugned order is completely bereft of reasons and merely states that the application is rejected considering the gravity of the offence. It is submitted that even under the applicable Rules, the opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are only relevant factors regarding the likely impact of release on society. The petitioner has been released on parole on several occasions and has always surrendered within time, demonstrating his reformation and compliance with the law. She further contended that the respondent authorities have failed to consider the merits of the petitioner's case, the period of 5 incarceration already undergone, his conduct in jail and other relevant considerations mandated by law. The impugned order does not disclose any application of mind and is devoid of cogent reasons. The authorities have taken into account irrelevant considerations while ignoring relevant material, thereby rendering the impugned decision arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 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 of wide amplitude and require due application of mind and recording of satisfaction on relevant considerations before a claim for premature release can be rejected.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that this Hon'ble Court has recently granted relief in a similar matter in WPCR No. 233 of 2026 decided on 29.04.2026, wherein the petitioner therein had also been convicted for causing the death of his wife by strangulation and had undergone more than 19 years of sentence including remission. It is submitted that the case of the present petitioner stands on a similar footing and therefore deserves similar consideration.

11. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner stands convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is submitted that premature release or remission is not a vested right and mere completion of the qualifying period of sentence does not automatically entitle a convict to release. Learned State 6 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 11.05.2026 after taking into consideration all relevant factors. It is further submitted that the gravity and nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, as well as its impact on society, constitute valid considerations for denial of premature release. The reports of the Collector and Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund were also taken into account by the competent authority. It is argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any procedural irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

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

13. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated 18.09.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Case No. 85/2011. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court in CRA No. 971/2012 vide judgment dated 10.09.2018. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 10489/2019.

14. The record further reveals that the petitioner has remained in custody since 13.09.2011 and has undergone approximately 14 years 7 and 09 months of actual imprisonment and more than 19 years of sentence including remission. The custody certificate and jail records further indicate that the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory throughout his incarceration.

15. 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 17.09.2025, observed that the petitioner had regularly earned remissions on account of good conduct and expressed no objection to grant of remission. It is further evident from the record that the petitioner was released on parole on several occasions and there is no allegation of misuse of liberty or violation of any parole condition. On each occasion, the petitioner surrendered before the authorities within the prescribed time.

16. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for premature release by order dated 11.05.2026 is sustainable in law.

17. 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 examining various factors including the prisoner's conduct and behaviour in jail, the opinion of the sentencing Court, the report of the Collector and Superintendent of Police and other relevant circumstances having bearing on his release. The Rule further provides 8 that while the State Government may accept or reject the recommendation of the Board, any order of rejection must disclose reasonable and logical reasons.

18. The law relating to premature release and remission is no longer res integra. In Laxman Naskar (supra), 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 opinions of local residents and witnesses cannot by themselves constitute determinative factors and that due importance must be attached to the reports regarding the prisoner's conduct and reformation.

19. 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 must be implemented in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner.

20. Upon careful scrutiny of the impugned order dated 11.05.2026, this Court finds that the petitioner's claim has been rejected mainly on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and on the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. The order also takes note of the opinion of the Collector and Superintendent of Police. 9 However, the impugned order does not reflect any meaningful consideration of several relevant circumstances, namely, the petitioner's long period of incarceration, his satisfactory jail conduct, the favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, his conduct during parole releases and his overall reformation during imprisonment.

21. 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. The impugned order does not disclose why the favourable materials available on record were found insufficient or how the adverse recommendations outweighed the positive indicators of reform and rehabilitation.

22. This Court is also of the considered view that the petitioner has undergone substantial incarceration and has become entitled to fair and objective consideration of his claim under the applicable Rules. The authorities were therefore required to evaluate all relevant materials in their proper perspective while arriving at a decision regarding premature release.

23. The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive. Long incarceration coupled with satisfactory conduct and demonstrated reform are significant considerations which cannot be ignored. The object of the Rules is to ensure that a prisoner who has undergone 10 substantial incarceration and has exhibited signs of reformation receives fair and objective consideration for reintegration into society.

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

11.05.2026 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 relevant factors and therefore cannot be sustained in law.

25. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 11.05.2026 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 now required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual terms and conditions a may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra