AJIT KUMAR SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 9


2026:CGHC:21093-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 255 of 2026
Ajit Kumar Sahu S/o Baliram Sahu Aged About 49 Years Convicted
Prisoner No. 3552/2018, R/o Village - Mokhli, Police Station Lalbag,
Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Home
Affairs (Jail), Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Upper Chief Secretary Department of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan,
New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Director General Jail and Correctional Services, Jail
Headquarter Sector-19 Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - The Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail- Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
5 - The Superintendent of Police District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate
For State : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. AG

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
06/05/2026
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Also
Digitally
signed by
ASHUTOSH
MISHRA
Date:
2026.05.08
17:10:09
+0530
ASHUTOSH
MISHRA

2 / 9
heard Dr. Saurabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing
for the respondent/State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set aside the impugned order 22-03-2026 passed by
the Respondent no.2 (Annexure P/1) and kindly grant
the remission prescribed under section 473 of the
BNSS/432(2) of the Cr.P.C.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
further issue an appropriate writ by directing the
respondent's authority to proceed the petitioner's
matter for grant of remission under section 432(2)
Cr.P.C. in accordance with law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and take decision accordingly
afresh for grant of remission to the petitioner within
stipulated time and disposed off the petition with that
directions as passed in similar matter by this Hon'ble
Court in WP(Cr.)No. 161/2026 Gopal Ram Versus
State of C.G. order dated 24-03-2026 ANNEXURE
P/8 .
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may
kindly be passed.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been in custody for more than 20 years including remission and during
the entire period of incarceration his conduct has remained satisfactory.
He would further submit that the petitioner has continuously performed
the work assigned to him in jail honestly and dutifully and has

3 / 9
cooperated in maintaining peace and discipline inside the jail. He would
next submit that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg while forwarding
the case of the petitioner has given positive recommendation for grant
of remission. He would further submit that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon, in exercise of powers under
Section 432(2) of the Cr.P.C., has also furnished a detailed positive
opinion dated 08-05-2024 specifically observing that the petitioner does
not appear capable of committing such offence again and that no useful
purpose would be served by keeping him in jail any further. It is further
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has also taken into
consideration the satisfactory jail conduct of the petitioner, the long
period of incarceration already undergone by him and the adverse effect
of continued detention upon the livelihood of his family members while
recommending remission in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel
would further argue that despite the aforesaid positive
recommendations made by the Jail Authorities as well as the learned
Sessions Court, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on
the basis of a negative opinion submitted by the Superintendent of
Police founded upon the opinion of the concerned SHO. He would
submit that the impugned order dated 22-03-2026 is wholly arbitrary,
mechanical and non-speaking inasmuch as no independent reasons
have been assigned by the competent authority while rejecting the claim
of the petitioner for remission. It is contended that the impugned order
merely reproduces that the opinion of the District Magistrate and
Superintendent of Police is negative and, on that basis alone, rejects

4 / 9
the petitioner’s case without considering the relevant materials available
on record. Learned counsel would further submit that while exercising
powers under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., the competent authority is
required to apply independent mind to all relevant considerations
including the conduct of the prisoner, possibility of reformation,
likelihood of repetition of offence and the opinion of the Presiding Judge
who conducted the trial. It is argued that the opinion of the Presiding
Judge carries great significance and could not have been ignored
without assigning cogent reasons. The authorities have failed to
properly consider relevant factors such as the Petitioner’s long
incarceration, reformation, good conduct, and favorable
recommendations, thereby rendering the impugned orders arbitrary and
violative of principles of fairness, as such, the denial of remission
defeats the reformative purpose of punishment and is contrary to law
governing remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned orders be set aside
and the Respondents be directed to grant remission and release the
Petitioner prematurely, or in the alternative, reconsider his case in a fair,
just, and reasoned manner in accordance with law.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel would oppose the petition and
submit that the petitioner has been convicted for serious offences
punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 460 of the I.P.C. vide judgment
dated 25-09-2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.102/2009 and the said
judgment of conviction has already been affirmed by this Hon’ble Court
in Criminal Appeal No.657/2012. It is submitted that the offences

5 / 9
committed by the petitioner are grave and heinous in nature. The
petitioner was convicted for committing house trespass during night
hours and causing death of the deceased while committing robbery.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offences and the manner in
which they were committed, the petitioner does not deserve exercise of
discretionary relief of remission. Learned State counsel would further
submit that though favourable opinions were furnished by the Jail
Authorities and the learned Sessions Judge, adverse comments and
reservations were expressed by the Superintendent of Police and the
District Administration regarding grant of premature release/remission to
the petitioner. It is contended that the District Administration, on the
basis of local inputs and reports received from the concerned
authorities, expressed apprehension regarding possible objection from
the victim side and possible disturbance arising out of the petitioner’s
release. It is further submitted that such considerations are relevant
factors while examining a claim for remission under Section 432 of the
Cr.P.C./Section 473 of the B.N.S.S. Learned State counsel would further
argue that remission or premature release is not a matter of vested right
and the State Government is empowered to exercise its discretion
keeping in view the larger public interest, gravity of offence and overall
societal impact. Mere completion of long incarceration or satisfactory jail
conduct by itself does not automatically entitle a convict to claim
remission as a matter of right. It is further submitted that the competent
authority, after considering all relevant materials placed before it
including the opinions/comments received from various authorities, has

6 / 9
rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 22-03-2026 and
therefore the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality,
arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court
in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned State counsel would lastly
submit that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any enforceable
legal right for grant of remission and as such the present petition being
devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record.
6. The Petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 460, 392, 302 of the IPC and is in custody since 20.09.2009. It
is not in dispute that the Petitioner has completed more than 20 years of
incarceration as on 10.06.2025. The material placed on record further
reveals that favourable opinions were furnished by the Jail Authorities
and the learned Sessions Judge, regarding grant of premature
release/remission to the petitioner.
7. The rejection of the Petitioner’s claim by the Respondent No.2
vide order dated 22/03/2026 on the basis of the negative report given by
the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are primarily
founded upon a negative opinion expressing apprehension of possible
future criminal conduct. However, such rejection does not disclose any
objective material and is evidently based on conjectures. This Court
finds that the impugned orders are non-speaking and reflect non-
application of mind, particularly when the relevant considerations such

7 / 9
as long incarceration, good conduct, reformation, and favorable
recommendations have not been duly weighed.
8. 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.
9.
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
the convict’s reformation. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government
of Andhra Pradesh , reported in (2006) 8 SCC 161 it has been held

8 / 9
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.
10. 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.
11.
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
orders, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
12. 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
denying such benefit on an erroneous interpretation of the Rule is
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as

9 / 9
explained in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (1974) 4
SCC 3 .
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed . The
impugned order dated 22/03/2026 passed by the Upper Chief Secretary,
Department of Jail, 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/-
SD/- SD/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ashu