RAVI KUMAR YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010329742026 2026:CGHC:38292-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
Date:
2026.09.01
10:28:58
+0530
SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 507 of 2026
Ravi Kumar Yadav S/o Hiraman Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Indira
Nagar, Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Presently In Central Jail Raipur
Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home
(Jail) Government Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar
Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Jail And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Sector 19 Atal Nagar
New Raipur, Through Director General Prisoners, Jail Road, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - District Magistrate/ Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : 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
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
31.08.2026
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner (through
Legal Aid). Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government

2
Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.
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

4
respondents for granting the benefit of premature release/remission to the
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.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
6.
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.
This Court has carefully perused the impugned order and the material
9.
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.
In the present case, the petitioner has remained in incarceration since
12.
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.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
14.
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/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Sagrika