Premature Release Cannot Be Denied Solely on Offence Gravity if Statutory Reformative Criteria and Good Conduct Are Met.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the State’s rejection of the petitioner’s application for premature release was arbitrary and in violation of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the denial of premature release was arbitrary and violative of Article 14

It also directed

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 22.03.2026. 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

01Facts

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 302 (two counts) and 307 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment on 31.08.2013

p. 2

His appeals were dismissed by the High Court (2018) and the Supreme Court (2021)

p. 2

As of April 2026, the petitioner had served over 15 years and 11 months of actual imprisonment (over 20 years including remission)

pp. 2-3

Despite a favorable opinion from the Presiding Judge [p. 3] and a satisfactory jail record, the State Sentence Review Board rejected his application for premature release via order dated 22.03.2026.

p. 3

The rejection was based on the "heinous" nature of the double murder and negative opinions from the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate regarding potential societal impact

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the State’s rejection of the petitioner’s application for premature release was arbitrary and in violation of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules

pp. 3-4

ii.2. Whether the gravity of the original offence can be the sole ground for denying remission once a convict fulfills the eligibility criteria and demonstrates reformation

p. 4, 6

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 358(7) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which mandates an objective assessment of a life convict’s conduct and suitability for reintegration

pp. 5-6

It relied on Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, establishing that authorities must weigh the likelihood of recurrence and potential for reformation rather than just the crime

p. 6

Under Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Court affirmed that remission orders are subject to judicial review for arbitrariness

p. 6

Furthermore, per State of Haryana v. Jagdish, remission policies must be applied consistently and fairly

p. 6

under E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, any arbitrary state action violates Article 14 of the Constitution

p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 307

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 432

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that while remission is a discretionary power under Section 432 Cr.P.C., it cannot be exercised through "mere conjectures"

p. 7

The Court found that the State ignored mandatory parameters under Rule 358, specifically failing to give weight to the sentencing Court’s "no objection" and the positive jail conduct reports

p. 4, 7

The Court determined that the State's reliance on the "heinous nature" of the crime was insufficient as a sole ground for rejection because the philosophy of penology is reformative, not retributive

pp. 6-7

Since the District Magistrate’s negative opinion lacked supporting material to override the statutory scheme of reformation, the decision-making process was deemed opaque, unfair, and a "misconceived interpretation" of the rules

pp. 6-7