RAJENDRA KUMAR CHOUBEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case type: WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL OTHER MATTER
Decided on: 25-03-2026

<div> 1 2026:CGHC:14243-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 109 of 2026 Rajendra Kumar Choubey S/o Late Shri Makhan Prasad Choubey Aged About 79 Years R/o Ward No. 4 Shilta Para, Simga, Distt. - Baloda MANPREET KAUR Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.27 11:44:29 +0530 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 3 - State Sentence Review Board Through Its Chairman, Raipur, (C.G.) 4 - Director General Of Police (Prison And Correctional Services) Sector 19, Nava Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, 2 appearing for the State/respondents. 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 call for entire records pertaining to the case of Petitioner's Son for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 12/12/2025(Annexure P/1) passed by the State Sentence Review Board. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the State Sentence Review Board to re-consider the case of the petitioner's son and further it may direct the jail authority to remit the sentence of the petitioner's son and release him. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to consider the award of appropriate compensation on account of unnecessary detention of the petitioner's son. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, including cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the father of the convict Raju @ Devendra Choubey, who stands convicted under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC by the judgment dated 29.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg in Sessions Trial No. 44/2004, and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine. It is submitted that the said conviction has attained finality, as the criminal appeals preferred before the Court were dismissed vide judgment dated 3 17.09.2010, and thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding the connected appeals, acquitted one co-accused Mahesh but maintained the conviction of the petitioner’s son and other co-accused vide judgment dated 21.08.2014. It is further contended that other co- accused persons, namely Beenu @ Chandraprakash and Shashi Tripathi, have already been released after undergoing their respective sentences, thereby placing the petitioner’s son on a similar footing for consideration of remission. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being aged about 79 years, had preferred a representation before His Excellency the Governor, which was duly forwarded through the competent authorities for consideration under the applicable rules. 4. It is further submitted that in light of the amendment dated 23.04.2025 to Rule 5(i) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, a life convict who has undergone actual imprisonment of 14 years becomes eligible for consideration of remission, and the petitioner’s son has already undergone more than 20 years of incarceration. It is contended that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WPCr No. 427/2025, the State Sentence Review Board was required to consider the case expeditiously. However, the representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 12.12.2025 without proper application of mind. Learned counsel submits that the impugned rejection order is arbitrary and unsustainable, as it fails to consider relevant factors including the long period of incarceration, the release of similarly placed co-accused, the death of the convict’s wife leaving behind two children, and the advanced age and medical condition of the 4 petitioner and his wife, who are dependent upon the convict. It is thus urged that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appropriate directions be issued for reconsideration of the petitioner’s case in accordance with law. 5. Learned State counsel, per contra, submits that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed, as the impugned order passed by the State Sentence Review Board is legal, justified and in accordance with the applicable rules and policy governing remission. It is contended that the conviction of the petitioner’s son for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the gravity and nature of the offence, involving a premeditated act of murder pursuant to criminal conspiracy, have been duly taken into consideration by the competent authority while rejecting the claim for premature release. It is further submitted that the right to seek remission is not a vested or absolute right, but is subject to the discretion of the appropriate Government, to be exercised on consideration of various relevant factors including the nature of offence, conduct of the prisoner and impact on society. 6. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner’s son is not comparable with that of other co-accused who have been released, as each case is required to be examined on its own facts and circumstances. The State Sentence Review Board has duly considered the relevant materials, including the reports from the jail authorities and other concerned departments, and has arrived at a conscious decision to reject the representation. It is contended that the amendment to Rule 5 5(i) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 only provides eligibility for consideration and does not confer any automatic right to release upon completion of a particular period of incarceration. The grounds urged by the petitioner, including personal and family circumstances, though sympathetic, cannot override the seriousness of the offence and the parameters governing remission. It is thus submitted that no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, annexures and material available on record. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is with regard to the legality of the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the State Sentence Review Board rejecting the claim of the petitioner for premature release of his son, namely Raju @ Devendra Choubey. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s son has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC and that such conviction has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further not in dispute that he has undergone more than 20 years of incarceration. 10. The record reflects that other co-accused persons have already been released after completion of their sentence, whereas the case of the petitioner’s son has been treated differently without any justifiable basis. The impugned order does not disclose any cogent reason for such differential treatment. 11. The amended Rule 5(i) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 provides that a life convict who has undergone actual imprisonment of 14 years becomes eligible for consideration for premature release. The 6 petitioner’s son having undergone more than the prescribed period squarely falls within the zone of consideration. 12. The impugned order dated 12.12.2025, however, proceeds without proper consideration of the relevant factors, including the long period of incarceration, the conduct of the prisoner, and the surrounding circumstances such as the death of his wife and the condition of his dependent family members. The order is conspicuously silent on these aspects and reflects non-application of mind. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish , reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216 , has held that a convict has a right to be considered for premature release in accordance with the applicable policy and that such consideration must be fair, reasonable and in terms of the prevailing Rules. Similarly, in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal , reported in (2000) 7 SCC 626 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that while considering premature release, the authorities must examine factors such as the nature of the offence, conduct of the prisoner in jail, and the likelihood of his reverting to criminal activities. The petitioner’s case satisfies these parameters. 14. 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 7 on a misconceived interpretation of the Rule amounts to arbitrariness and offends the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. It is settled law that while remission or premature release cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the consideration thereof must be fair, reasonable and in accordance with the governing rules. An arbitrary or mechanical rejection of such claim cannot be sustained. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner’s son has undergone more than two decades of incarceration, has become eligible under the applicable Rules, and there is no adverse material placed on record disentitling him from such benefit, denial of premature release would be unjustified. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. It is held that the petitioner’s son, namely Raju @ Devendra Choubey, is entitled to the benefit of premature release in terms of the applicable Rules. 19. The respondent authorities are directed to release the petitioner’s son forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance of usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. 20. The writ petition stands allowed . No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet </div>