Ravi Kumar Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home

: Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate (Legal Aid) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board

31.08.2026

#1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner (through Legal Aid). Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy 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 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the grievance of the petitioner from the respondent authorities.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned order No. LAW- 42015/5066/2026.JAIL-3, dated 12-06-2026 (Annexure P- 1), issued by the respondent No.1 and declare it to be non- est, without authority of law and contrary to the principle of natural justice.

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pas fresh order and decide matter of releasing on remission of the petitioner/convict in the light of provisions of law.

10.4 Cost of the litigation/petition be allowed.

10.5 Any other relief(s) may be given to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in continuous custody since 17.01.2008 pursuant to his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide judgment dated 29.09.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special S.T. No. 09/2008, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in 3 custody for a prolonged period and has undergone more than eighteen years of actual incarceration. The petitioner’s Criminal Appeal No.787/2009 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2014 and the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1701/2017 preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.03.2017.

#4. It is further submitted that the jail authorities processed the petitioner’s case for premature release/remission and obtained the opinion of the concerned Court in terms of the provisions governing remission. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the opinion furnished by the concerned Court was favourable to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner’s case was forwarded to the competent authority for consideration. However, vide the impugned order dated 12.06.2026, the petitioner’s claim for premature release has been rejected principally on the ground of the gravity of the offence and the apprehension that he may commit a serious offence after his release. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the relevant material, including the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, his conduct during the period of imprisonment and the opinion obtained from the concerned Court. It is contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim merely on the basis of the gravity of the offence, without objectively considering the relevant factors governing premature release, is arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled, at the very least, to a fair, objective and lawful consideration of his case for premature release in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the prevailing remission policy. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents for granting the benefit of premature release/remission to the 4 petitioner.

#5. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner stands convicted for a grave and heinous offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. It is submitted that the power to grant remission or premature release under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is discretionary in nature and a convict cannot claim premature release as a matter of right merely on completion of a particular period of incarceration. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s case was considered by the competent authority and, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the possibility of the petitioner committing serious offences after his release, the competent authority rejected his claim vide order dated 12.06.2026. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the relevant circumstances and no ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

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

#7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 29.09.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special S.T. No.09/2008. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in custody since 17.01.2008 and has thus undergone a substantial and 5 prolonged period of actual incarceration. The Criminal Appeal preferred by the petitioner before this Court was dismissed on 28.10.2014 and the challenge carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also unsuccessful.

#8. The material available on record further reveals that the petitioner’s case for premature release/remission was processed by the jail authorities and the opinion of the concerned Court was obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant statutory provisions. The petitioner specifically contends that the opinion so obtained was favourable to him. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the competent authority for consideration. However, the petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 principally on the grounds of the gravity of the offence and the apprehension regarding the possibility of commission of a serious offence by the petitioner after his release.

#9. This Court has carefully perused the impugned order and the material available on record. It is well settled that though a convict does not acquire an absolute or indefeasible right to premature release merely because he has undergone a particular period of imprisonment, he certainly possesses a right to have his case considered fairly, objectively and in accordance with the statutory provisions, Rules and policy applicable to him. The competent authority, while exercising its power of remission, is required to take into consideration all relevant circumstances and cannot reject a claim mechanically or solely on the basis of the nature and gravity of the offence for which the conviction was recorded.

#10. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the power of remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is a statutory power 6 to be exercised by the appropriate Government in accordance with law and the applicable remission policy. Though premature release cannot be claimed as an absolute or indefeasible right merely upon completion of a particular period of imprisonment, an eligible convict is entitled to have his case considered fairly, objectively and in accordance with the Rules and policy applicable to his case.

#11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, and State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 has consistently held that while exercising powers relating to remission or premature release, the authorities are required to consider relevant factors, apply the applicable policy uniformly and avoid arbitrary or irrelevant considerations. Equally relevant are the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 78/2017 (Amarnath Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh), emphasizing that opinions under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. must not be rendered mechanically and that remission matters are required to be dealt with in a fair and reasoned manner.

#12. In the present case, the petitioner has remained in incarceration since

17.01.2008 and has undergone a substantial period of imprisonment. His case was processed by the jail authorities and the relevant opinion from the concerned Court was also obtained. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 indicates that the petitioner’s claim has principally been rejected on the basis of the gravity of the offence and a general apprehension regarding the possibility of his involvement in serious criminal activity after release. The order does not disclose any specific material or objective assessment forming the basis for such apprehension. Nor does it 7 reflect proper consideration of the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration and the other relevant circumstances required to be examined while considering his claim for premature release.

#13. It is pertinent to observe that the gravity of the original offence, by itself, cannot be treated as the sole and determinative consideration for rejecting a claim for premature release, particularly when the competent authority is required to examine the conduct and circumstances of the prisoner during the long period of his incarceration and the possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation. The purpose of the provisions relating to remission and premature release is not merely punitive but also recognises the principles of reformation and rehabilitation. The competent authority is, therefore, required to make an objective assessment of the case on the basis of all relevant material rather than mechanically relying upon the nature of the offence committed several years earlier.

#14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has undergone a very long period of incarceration and his case for premature release was duly processed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The impugned order, however, does not demonstrate an objective and comprehensive consideration of all the relevant factors governing premature release and appears to rest primarily upon the gravity of the offence and a general apprehension regarding the petitioner’s future conduct. Such consideration does not satisfy the requirement of fair and objective exercise of statutory power. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.

#15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

12.06.2026 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed and set aside. The 8 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/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge Sagrika