Denial of premature release based solely on gravity of offence without considering reformative factors is arbitrary.

The petitioner, Dharmraj Sahu, was convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment

As of the filing, he had undergone over 14 years of actual imprisonment and over 19 years including remissions

Despite a "no objection" memo from the Presiding Judge regarding his good conduct and regular parole compliance, the respondent authorities rejected his application for premature release via an order dated 22.03.2026

This rejection was primarily based on the "gravity of the offence"

The petitioner challenged this order as arbitrary and non-speaking, asserting that mandatory factors under the prison rules were ignored

1. Whether the summary rejection of a premature release application based solely on the gravity of the offence, without considering reformative factors and jail conduct, is legally sustainable

2. Whether the state authorities exercised their discretionary power under Section 432 Cr.P.C. (or corresponding BNSS provisions) in a fair and non-arbitrary manner

Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which mandates the State Sentence Review Board to consider the opinion of the sentencing Court, reports from the Collector/SP, and the prisoner’s jail record

premature release is a reformative tool rather than a vested right, as established in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, which requires an evaluation of the potential for reformation and the likelihood of recurrence

Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. and State of Haryana v. Jagdish to affirm that executive discretion in granting remission is subject to judicial review if it is arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations

The mandate of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution, as defined in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, was also central to the ruling

The Court reasoned that while the offence was heinous, the gravity of the crime cannot be the sole criterion for denying remission once the eligibility criteria are met

The Court scrutinized the decision-making process, finding that the authorities failed to record logical reasons as required by Rule 358(7)

It noted that the petitioner had maintained "satisfactory conduct" and the sentencing court had expressed no objection to his release

The Court observed that the State Sentence Review Board relied on "mere conjectures" and failed to give due weight to the positive recommendations of the jail authorities

By ignoring the reformative intent of the law and focusing retributively on the nature of the original crime, the state’s order was deemed a "misconceived interpretation" of the rules and a violation of the petitioner’s right to fair consideration under Article 14

The petition was allowed, and the order dated 22.03.2026 was quashed. The Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of remission and release him forthwith, subject to standard conditions under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968, provided he is not required in any other case