TOPSINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:21076-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 250 of 2026
Topsingh S/o. Bihari Lal Aged About 37 Years R/o. Devarbija, P.S.-
Bemetara, Dist.- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home And
Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Secretary Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Under Secretary Jail Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Director General Prisons The Jail And Correctional Services
Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur
(C.G.)
5 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg (C.G.)
6 - Collector Bemetara Dist.- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate (Legal Aid)
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Pandey, Dr. A.G.

2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06/05/2026
1. Heard Mr. Wasim Miyan, learned counsel for the petitioner
through legal aid. Also heard Dr. Sourabh Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate
General appearing for Respondent/State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following relief:-
"10.1 It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records
pertaining to the case of petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly bepleased
to set aside the order dated 22.03.2026 (Annexure
P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 and may kindly
direct the authorities to consider the application of
the Petitioner, under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. for grant
of remission of the remaining jail sentence and
pleased to direct respondent authorities to release
the petitioner under the provision of Section 432 of
Cr.P.C. or as per other existing provision of law.
10.3 That, Any other relief which may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case,
may also be granted in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was
convicted under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment vide judgment dated 25.07.2013 passed by the learned

3
Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Sessions Trial No. 62/2011.
The conviction was challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.
749/2013, which came to be dismissed on 28.01.2020. Thereafter, the
petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the appeal
was also dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2020. Subsequently, the
petitioner, after undergoing substantial period of incarceration,
submitted an application for remission of the remaining sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
has completed more than 14 years of imprisonment, the petitioner
applied for remission of the remaining sentence before the competent
authorities. The said application was recommended by Respondent
No.5 and forwarded by the Director General of Prisons (Respondent
No.4) along with relevant reports and judicial opinion. However, the
State Government (Respondent No.3) rejected the petitioner’s claim for
premature release, primarily on the ground of the heinous nature of the
offence, adverse reports indicating potential law and order concerns,
and the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board,
holding the petitioner not fit for remission at present. Being aggrieved by
the arbitrary and non-speaking rejection, despite fulfilling the eligibility
criteria and completing more than 14 years of custody, the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition seeking quashment of the impugned
order and direction for reconsideration of his case for remission in
accordance with law.
5. He further submits that, the petitioner has already undergone
more than 14 years of incarceration i.e., 14 years, 3 months and 19

4
days as on the date of application, and has thus become entitled for
consideration of premature release in accordance with applicable
remission policies. Under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh
Prison Rules, 1968, the State Sentence Review Board is required to
conduct an inquiry on eleven specified points under sub-rule (4), which
includes consideration of the opinion of the concerned Collector and
Superintendent of Police. Clause (iii) of sub-rule (7) mandates that the
Board shall consider all relevant aspects, including the opinion of the
Court, the report of theCollector, and the jail report regarding the
conduct and behaviour of the prisoner. Further, clause (vii) of sub-rule
(7) provides that while the State Government may accept or reject the
recommendation of the Board, any order of rejection must contain
reasonable and logical reasons. It is urged that the impugned order is
wholly non-speaking and bereft of cogent reasons, as it merely refers to
the gravity of the offence without demonstrating due consideration of
the petitioner's long period of incarceration, satisfactory conduct,
favourable opinion of the learned Presiding Judge, and other relevant
factors mandated under the amended Rule 358.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
authorities have rejected the petitioner's application without proper
application of mind and without considering the relevant material on
record. The impugned order reflects consideration of irrelevant factors
while ignoring relevant considerations, thereby rendering the same
arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The power under Section 432 of the
Cr.P.C. (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

5
2023 (for short, 'BNSS')) is of wide amplitude and its exercise requires
recording of proper subjective satisfaction based on objective
consideration of all relevant materials. The absence of reasons vitiates
the decision-making process. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
22.03.2026 is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the impugned
order has been passed strictly in accordance with the amended Rule
358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 after due consideration by
the State Sentence Review Board. The petitioner stands convicted for
grave and serious offences, including under Section 302 of the IPC. The
nature and manner of commission of the offence are relevant and
permissible considerations while examining a case for premature
release. The power under Section 473 of the BNSS (earlier Section 432
of the Cr.P.C.) is discretionary in nature and does not confer any vested
or fundamental right upon a convict to claim remission or premature
release as a matter of right.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record.
9. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 and the
material placed on record, it prima facie appears that the rejection of the
petitioner's application for premature release does not satisfy the
mandatory requirements of the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh
Prison Rules, 1968. The Rule obligates the State Sentence Review
Board to examine the case on the parameters prescribed under sub-

6
rule (4), including the opinion of the sentencing Court, the report of the
Collector and Superintendent of Police, and the jail conduct report.
Further, sub-rule (7)(vii) mandates that in case of rejection, the State
Government must assign reasonable and logical reasons. The
impugned order, however, merely refers to the gravity of the offence and
a generalized apprehension of adverse societal impact, without
reflecting due consideration of the petitioner's long incarceration of more
than 14 years (including remission), his satisfactory jail conduct,
repeated parole releases without any adverse report, and the opinion of
the Presiding Judge expressing no objection to remission.
10. The power under Section 473 of the BNSS (earlier Section 432 of
the Cr.P.C.), though discretionary, must be exercised upon objective
consideration of relevant materials and supported by recorded
subjective satisfaction. Failure to consider relevant factors, coupled with
non-observance of the principle of parity, renders the decision arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such
circumstances, the impugned order warrants interference.
11. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition
is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2026 is hereby set aside.
The respondent-State is directed to forthwith take necessary steps for
premature release of the petitioner in accordance with law, if not
required in any other case.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika