Premature release cannot be denied mechanically without considering reformation, prison conduct, and rehabilitation prospects.

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to the judgment dated 31 January 2011 in S.T. No. 370/2010. His conviction was affirmed in appeal by the High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court. He had remained in custody since 22 July 2010, had undergone approximately sixteen years and one month of imprisonment, and had earned regular remissions for satisfactory jail conduct

The Jail Superintendent recommended his case for premature release under the prescribed Proforma ‘A’, and the trial Court expressed no objection to remission. However, the competent authorities rejected the claim by order dated 10 April 2026, relying principally on the seriousness of the offence, objections from local persons, and reports of the police authorities, Senior Superintendent of Police and Collector

The petitioner challenged the rejection as arbitrary, cryptic and based on irrelevant considerations

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for remission/premature release, based primarily on the seriousness of the offence, local objections and a negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, was arbitrary and contrary to the governing statutory scheme?

2. Whether the petitioner, having undergone the prescribed period of imprisonment and demonstrated satisfactory conduct, was entitled to consideration and grant of premature release under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968?

3. Whether the High Court could judicially review and set aside the remission decision for non-application of mind, reliance on extraneous considerations and failure to assess reformation, likelihood of recidivism and public safety?

The Court applied Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning suspension, remission and commutation of sentences, read with Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which requires consideration of the prisoner’s conduct, prospects of reformation and suitability for reintegration

Remission is discretionary and does not constitute an absolute or vested right, but the discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, non-arbitrarily and on relevant considerations

Relying on Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, the Court identified the relevant considerations as the impact of the offence on society, likelihood of recurrence, whether the prisoner has lost the propensity to commit offences, and whether continued incarceration would serve a useful purpose

Under Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, remission orders are subject to judicial review if arbitrary, mala fide, based on extraneous considerations or affected by non-application of mind

State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, requires remission policies to be applied fairly, consistently and non-discriminatorily in furtherance of their reformative purpose

The Court also invoked Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle against arbitrary State action

The Court found that the petitioner had undergone a substantial period of imprisonment, maintained satisfactory jail conduct, received a favourable recommendation from the Jail Authorities, and obtained a positive opinion/no objection from the trial Court

Against this material, the respondents relied mainly on the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, the gravity of the offence and local objections, without demonstrating unsatisfactory prison conduct, a likelihood of repetition of the offence, a continuing threat to public safety, or any statutory disqualification

The Court held that the seriousness of the original offence, by itself, could not replace an assessment of the petitioner’s present conduct, reformation, rehabilitation and likelihood of recidivism.

Since the impugned order did not disclose independent application of mind or intelligible reasons for disregarding the favourable material, it constituted a mechanical and arbitrary exercise of discretion contrary to Section 432, Rule 358 and Article 14

It held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC, the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968.

The respondents were directed to release him forthwith, if he was not required in any other case, subject to the usual terms and conditions under the Prison Rules

No order as to costs was made