GANESH BHASKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:21311-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 257 of 2026
Ganesh Bhaskar S/o. Anjordas Bhaskar Aged About 43 Years R/o.
Village- Gidhwa, P.S.- Nandghat, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
Presently Lodged In Raipur Central Jail Raipur (C.G.) (Since In Jail
Through His Wife Vedbai Bhaskar, W/o. Ganesh Bhaskar Aged Aboud
39 Years, R/o. Village Gidhwa, P.S.- Nandghat, District- Bemetara
(C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Home (Jail)
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar
Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Services) Jail
Department, Jail Headquarters, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Jail Superintendent Raipur, Central Jail Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Collector Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Respondents
_________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande,
Deputy Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
. 05 07 .202 6
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
as Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General,

2
appearing for the State/respondents.
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
quash the order dated 22.03.2026 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the respondent authorities and direct the
Respondent State to prematurely release the
petitioner, in accordance with law, in the interest of
justice.
10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other relief as it may deem fit in the interest
of justice.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 (two counts) and
307 IPC and vide judgment dated 31.08.2013 passed in Sessions Trial
No. 54/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara,
District Bemetara (C.G), the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, 07 years' rigorous
imprisonment under Section 307 IPC. The petitioner preferred Criminal
Appeal No. 1105/2013 before this Court and this Court vide judgment
dated 24.08.2018 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
Diary No. 12529/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has
been dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2021. She further submitted
that the petitioner petitioner is in jail since 02.06.2010 and is presently
serving his life imprisonment at Raipur Central Jail and has completed a
total of more than 15 years 11 months of actual imprisonment as in April

3
2026 (more than 20 years imprisonment including remission). After the
petitioner become eligible for consideration for premature released
under the provisions of CG Prison Rules an opinion was sought from
the Presiding Judge. The learned Presiding Judge vide its memo dated
29.06.2024 (sought in the earlier application) has given an opinion that
the Learned Court has no objection if the petitioner is granted remission
of sentence. Thereafter the petitioner made an application before the
Prison Authorities and requested that since he has completed more
than 14 years of imprisonment, he may be given the benefit of pre-
mature release. Vide letter dated 25.07.2025 the application was sent
by the respondent No. 03 to the respondent No. 04 which was to be
forwarded to the respondent No. 02. A similar letter was also sent to
respondent No. 02 vide letter dated 19.11.2025. She contended that the
petitioner has never availed the benefit of parole and that the conduct of
the petitioner has been satisfactory in jail, however, the State authorities
have vide the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejected the application
of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has committed a
heinous offence and had committed murder of two persons and caused
injury to one person, and since a negative opinion has been given by
the Superintendent of Police concerned and District Magistrate, that his
release would give a negative impact on society, the petitioner cannot
be pre-maturely released.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under
Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, the State Sentence Review
Board is required to consider multiple relevant factors, including:

4
opinion of the Court,
•
• report of the Collector and Superintendent of Police, and
• jail record regarding conduct and behavior of the prisoner.
However, the impugned order does not reflect consideration of
these mandatory parameters. Learned counsel submits that the
petitioner has not even been supplied with the reports of the
Collector and Superintendent of Police, thereby depriving him of
an effective opportunity and rendering the decision-making
process opaque and unfair. It is argued that the authorities have
failed to record cogent and logical reasons as required under Rule
358(7), and the rejection is based solely on the seriousness of the
offence, which by itself cannot be the sole ground once eligibility
criteria are fulfilled. Learned counsel emphasizes that the power
under Section 432 Cr.P.C. / corresponding provisions of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is wide but must be
exercised on objective and rational grounds, with proper recording
of subjective satisfaction, which is absent in the present case. In
view of the above, it is prayed that this Court may quash the
impugned order dated 22.03.2026; direct reconsideration of the
petitioner’s case in accordance with law and Rule 358; and/or
pass any other appropriate order in the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner
stands convicted for a heinous offence i.e. murder of two persons and
for causing injury to one person, and since a negative opinion has been
given by the Superintendent of Police concerned and District

5
Magistrate, that his release would give a negative impact on society, the
petitioner cannot be pre-maturely released. He further submitted taht
premature release/remission is not a vested right but a discretionary
relief; mere completion of the qualifying period does not entitle the
petitioner to release. He further submitted that the the petitioner’s case
was duly considered by the State Sentence Review Board, and the
State Government has passed the impugned order after due application
of mind. The authorities have complied with Rule 358 of the
Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, considering relevant factors including
nature of offence and reports of district authorities. The gravity of the
offence and its societal impact are valid and sufficient grounds for
rejection of premature release. The reports of the Collector and
Superintendent of Police, though recommendatory, are relevant inputs
and have been duly considered. There is no procedural illegality;
remission proceedings are administrative in nature and do not require
strict adherence to adversarial procedures. The impugned order
contains adequate reasoning, and cannot be termed arbitrary merely for
being brief. Judicial review in such matters is limited, and no ground is
made out for interference. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid
of merit deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record.
7. 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

6
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.
8. 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
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.

7
9. 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.
10. 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
order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
11. 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
explained in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (1974) 4
SCC 3 .
12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed and
the impugned order dated 22.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
competent authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents

8
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/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra