RAJAURAM RATRE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

NAFR
Digitally signed
by ALOK
SHARMA
Date:
2026.06.27
12:07:28 +0530
ALOK
SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 333 of 2026
1 - Rajauram Ratre S/o Chintaram Aged About 43 Years R/o- Village-
Chherkadih, P.S.- Palari, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Jail,
Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Additional Secretary Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Jail, Mahanadi
Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Director General Of Jail And Correctional Services Headquarters, Jail And
Correctional Services, Sector- 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District
Raipur (C.G.) 492002
4 - Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
.. Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from the Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Varun Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
/06/2026 25
1 The matter has been listed on default. Upon due consideration, the
default pointed out by the Registry is waived.
Heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, appearing on behalf of Mr. Varun Shamra,
2

2
learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Dy.
Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State.
3 The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call
for the records of the case from the Respondents.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
set-aside the order dated 22/03/2026 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the respondent no.1/State Government.
10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the
respondents to release Petitioner granting remission
under the provisions of section 473 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (Section 432 Of
Cr.P.C.).
10.4 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to
pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs
which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken
into custody on 07.11.2010 in connection with the offence and was
subsequently convicted by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Balodabazar, then District Raipur (now District Balodabazar-Bhatapara), vide
judgment dated 28.06.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 28/2011 for offences
punishable under Sections 506 Part-II, 450, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and
323/149 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along
with fine. He further submits that Criminal Appeal No. 696/2013 preferred by
the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2019 and
thereafter Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 41389/2019 was also
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2022. Learned counsel
would further submit that the petitioner has remained in custody since

3
07.11.2010 and, after taking into account the remission earned by him, has
completed the requisite period of sentence for consideration of premature
release/remission under the applicable Prison Rules. During incarceration,
the conduct of the petitioner has been found to be good and satisfactory and,
accordingly, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, vide communication
dated 30.07.2025, forwarded his case for remission and sought opinion from
the Court of conviction. It is further submitted that the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, vide order dated 25.08.2025, has given a
positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of remission.
Despite the aforesaid favourable recommendations and the amendment
brought in the Prison Rules vide notification dated 23.04.2025 removing the
earlier bar on remission, the State Government, by the impugned order dated
22.03.2026, rejected the petitioner's claim for remission solely on the basis of
the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review
Board. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order is arbitrary,
unreasonable and contrary to the reformative object underlying the provisions
relating to remission, particularly when the petitioner has demonstrated good
conduct and reformation during his long incarceration. It is lastly submitted
that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Manoj Sahu
v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.(Cr.) No. 178/2026), decided on
06.04.2026, wherein in similar circumstances this Court directed grant of
remission, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the same relief.
5 Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has been
convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 506 Part-II, 450,
148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and is
undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to a valid judgment of conviction
passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar. It is

4
further submitted that the conviction of the petitioner has attained finality, as
Criminal Appeal No. 696/2013 preferred before this Court was dismissed on
07.02.2019 and the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 41389/2019 filed
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 15.07.2022.
Learned State counsel would contend that the offences committed by the
petitioner are grave in nature and have serious repercussions on society. It is
further submitted that the State Government, while considering the
petitioner's case for remission, took into account the recommendation of the
Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, which did not find the
petitioner suitable for grant of remission, and accordingly the claim of the
petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.03.2026. It is argued that the
recommendation of the Punishment Review Board constitutes relevant
material for consideration by the State Government while exercising its
powers under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section
473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), and therefore no
illegality can be attributed to the impugned order. It is thus submitted that
considering the nature of the offence and the adverse recommendation of the
competent Board, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for and
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6 It is submitted that grant of remission is neither automatic nor a matter
of right merely upon completion of the requisite period of incarceration, but is
subject to consideration by the competent authority in accordance with the
applicable statutory provisions and policy guidelines. Learned State counsel
contends that the petitioner stands convicted for serious offences including
murder and attempt to murder and, therefore, the nature and gravity of the
offence are relevant considerations while examining his claim for premature
release. It is further submitted that the State Government, after considering

5
the material placed before it, including the recommendation of the
Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board, has passed the impugned
order dated 22.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for remission and the
same does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Learned State counsel, however, fairly submits that this Court, in Manoj Sahu
v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.(Cr.) No. 178/2026), decided on
06.04.2026, has granted relief in similar circumstances; nevertheless,
according to him, each case is required to be considered on its own facts and
the said decision would not automatically entitle the present petitioner to
claim remission as a matter of right.
7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record.
8 The petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections
506 Part-II, 450, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal
Code and has remained in custody since 07.11.2010. It is not in dispute that
the petitioner has completed the requisite period of incarceration, including
earned remission, making him eligible for consideration of premature
release/remission under the applicable Prison Rules. The material available
on record further reveals that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, vide
communication dated 30.07.2025, forwarded the petitioner's case for
remission after recording that his conduct in jail was good and satisfactory,
and sought the opinion of the Court of conviction. It is also evident that the
learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, by order dated
25.08.2025, furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner
for grant of remission. Thus, the record demonstrates that both the jail

6
authorities as well as the Court of conviction found the petitioner suitable for
consideration of remission on account of his satisfactory conduct and
reformation during the period of incarceration.
9 The rejection of the petitioner's claim for remission by the State
Government vide impugned order dated 22.03.2026 is primarily founded
upon the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment
Review Board. However, the impugned order does not indicate any objective
material demonstrating that the petitioner, if released, would pose a threat to
society or is otherwise unsuitable for premature release. On the contrary, the
record reveals that the petitioner has maintained good conduct during
incarceration and has received favourable recommendations from both the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, and the Court of conviction. The
rejection appears to have been made without adequately considering these
relevant factors and the amendment brought about by notification dated
23.04.2025 removing the earlier bar on remission. This Court also takes note
of the decision rendered in Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
(W.P.(Cr.) No. 178/2026), decided on 06.04.2026, wherein relief was granted
in similar circumstances. While the said decision does not confer an
automatic right upon the present petitioner, it nonetheless reinforces the
requirement that the petitioner's claim for remission be considered on the
basis of objective criteria, fairness and the reformative principles underlying
the remission policy.
10 At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the provisions governing
remission and premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968,
as amended by Notification dated 23.04.2025. The amended Rules
contemplate consideration of premature release of life convicts who have

7
undergone the prescribed period of sentence, subject to an assessment of
their conduct, reformation and overall suitability for reintegration into society.
The said provisions embody the reformative philosophy of criminal
jurisprudence and require that the case of an eligible convict be considered in
a fair, objective and non-arbitrary manner. In the present case, it is not
disputed that the petitioner has completed the requisite period of
incarceration, including the remission earned by him, and that his conduct
during imprisonment has been found to be satisfactory. The record further
reveals that both the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, and the Court of
conviction have recommended the petitioner's case for remission. In such
circumstances, the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State
Punishment Review Board, unsupported by any cogent material indicating
that the petitioner is unfit for release or poses a threat to society, cannot be
permitted to defeat the statutory scheme and the reformative object
underlying the remission policy.
11 It is well settled that though the power of remission under Section 432
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is discretionary in nature, such discretion is required
to be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner, keeping in
view the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal ,
(2000) 7 SCC 626 , has held that while considering premature release of a
convict, the competent authority is required to examine, inter alia, whether the
offence is an individual act without affecting society at large, the likelihood of
the convict committing offences in future, and the probability of his
rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh , (2006) 8 SCC 161 , it has been held that

8
orders relating to remission are amenable to judicial review where they are
found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide or based on irrelevant
considerations. Further, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish , (2010) 4 SCC 216 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the benefit of a remission
policy must be extended in a fair, consistent and non-discriminatory manner.
Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, the impugned order rejecting
the petitioner's claim for remission, despite favourable recommendations of
the jail authorities and the Court of conviction and in the absence of any
cogent material indicating his unsuitability for release, does not appear to
satisfy the requirement of objective and fair consideration envisaged under
law.
12 The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is
essentially reformative and not retributive. Long incarceration, coupled with
demonstrable good conduct, favourable recommendations from the
competent authorities and absence of any statutory disqualification, entitles a
convict to fair, objective and non-arbitrary consideration under the applicable
Prison Rules. In the present case, the petitioner has remained in custody
since 07.11.2010 and has completed the requisite period of incarceration for
consideration of remission. The record further reveals that the learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, vide order dated 25.08.2025, has
furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner and the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, has also recommended his case on
account of his satisfactory conduct during incarceration. This Court also
cannot lose sight of the fact that in Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh &
Others [W.P.(Cr.) No. 178/2026], decided on 06.04.2026, relief was granted in
similar circumstances. Though parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right,
the said decision reinforces the requirement of consistency and fairness in

9
decision-making. 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 for remission is founded solely upon the adverse recommendation of
the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board without any cogent,
objective or tangible material indicating that the petitioner is unsuitable for
release or poses a threat to society. On the contrary, the favourable
recommendation of the Court of conviction and the recommendation of the
jail authorities, which are relevant indicators of the petitioner's conduct,
reformation and suitability for release, have not been accorded due
weightage. Such an approach defeats the reformative object underlying the
remission policy and renders the decision-making process arbitrary,
unreasonable and unsustainable in law.
13 In the totality of the circumstances, particularly considering that the
petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010 and has completed the
requisite period of incarceration for consideration of remission, his
satisfactory conduct during imprisonment, the favourable recommendation
made by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, vide
order dated 25.08.2025, as well as the recommendation of the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, and further taking into account the
amendment to the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules vide Notification dated
23.04.2025 removing the earlier bar on remission, this Court is satisfied that
the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of remission in accordance with law.
The impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim solely
on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State
Punishment Review Board, without any cogent, objective or tangible material
to justify such rejection, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is
violative of the principles of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness

10
enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
14 Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed .
The impugned order bearing No. LAW-4201/236(34)/2026/JAIL-3 dated
22.03.2026 passed by the respondent/State Government is quashed and set
aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of remission to the
petitioner in accordance with the applicable Chhattisgarh Prison Rules and
release him forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance
with the usual terms and conditions governing such release. No order as to
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge Judge

Alok