Denial of remission based on speculative future conduct despite favorable reformative reports is arbitrary.

The petitioner, Manoj Sahu, was convicted on January 29, 2011, for offenses under Sections 302, 392, 120-B, and 201 of the IPC in Sessions Trial No. 26/2009.

He has been in custody since May 26, 2009, completing more than 20 years of incarceration (including remissions) as of June 10, 2025.

Throughout his imprisonment, the petitioner maintained good conduct, prompting the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, to issue a "no objection" opinion for remission on August 21, 2024, and the Jail Superintendent to recommend his case.

However, on February 14, 2026, the District Magistrate, Bemetara, rejected the petitioner's claim for premature release based on a vague apprehension that the petitioner might reoffend in the future.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, citing the reformative purpose of punishment and seeking parity with a co-accused, Gopal Ram, who had been granted relief by the High Court in a separate proceeding.

1. Whether the District Magistrate’s rejection of the remission claim was arbitrary, speculative, and devoid of objective material.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to premature release under the applicable state policy and Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Court primarily applied Section 432 of the CrPC, which grants the State the discretionary power to remit sentences.

It further relied on Section 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual (Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968), which mandates the consideration of life convicts for premature release based on conduct and reformation.

The Court followed the precedents set in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2000), which identified key factors for remission (likelihood of recurrence, impact on society, and reformation).

Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (2006), which established that remission orders are subject to judicial review if arbitrary or mala fide.

State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010), which emphasized that remission policies must be extended fairly and consistently.

The Court noted that while the power of remission is discretionary, it must be exercised in a non-arbitrary and reasonable manner.

It found that the District Magistrate’s rejection was founded on "mere conjectures and surmises" regarding future criminal conduct without any tangible evidence to support such an apprehension.

The Court highlighted that the authorities failed to give due weight to the positive recommendations of the sentencing court and the jail authorities, which are critical indicators of reformation.

It reasoned that the petitioner met all eligibility criteria under the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual, having served the requisite period with satisfactory conduct.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the principle of fairness and consistency required the State to consider the fact that a co-accused had already been granted parole, suggesting a disparate treatment of the petitioner.

The Court held that the denial of remission based solely on unsubstantiated apprehensions was arbitrary and violative of the mandate of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Respondents were directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case, subject to standard terms and conditions under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968.