Premature release cannot be denied solely on offence gravity without objective consideration of relevant factors.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhamtari, on 29.09.2009.

He had remained in custody since 17.01.2008. His criminal appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 28.10.2014, and his Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27.03.2017.

The jail authorities processed his case for premature release/remission and obtained the opinion of the concerned court, which the petitioner asserted was favourable.

However, the competent authority rejected his claim by order dated 12.06.2026, principally relying on the gravity of the offence and the apprehension that he might commit a serious offence after release.

The petitioner challenged the rejection order under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking its quashing and reconsideration of his remission claim.

Whether the competent authority’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim for premature release/remission, based principally on the gravity of the offence and a general apprehension of future criminal conduct, was arbitrary and contrary to the requirement of fair and objective consideration under the applicable law and remission policy?

Whether the petitioner, having undergone a prolonged period of incarceration, was entitled to reconsideration and release upon remission in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968?

The Court applied Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which remission and premature release are matters of statutory discretion vested in the appropriate Government; however, the convict has a right to fair, objective and lawful consideration of the claim, though no absolute right to release arises merely from completion of a specified period of imprisonment.

Relying on Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, and State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Court held that remission authorities must consider relevant factors, apply the governing policy uniformly, and avoid arbitrary, mechanical or irrelevant considerations.

The Court also relied on the principles stated in Amarnath Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P. (PIL) No. 78 of 2017, requiring remission proceedings and opinions under Section 432(2) CrPC to be dealt with fairly and for valid reasons.

The gravity of the original offence cannot, by itself, be the sole determinative ground for denying remission; the prisoner’s conduct during incarceration, reformation, rehabilitation and other relevant circumstances must also be assessed.

The Court found that the petitioner had undergone a substantial period of incarceration since 17.01.2008 and that his case had been processed through the prescribed procedure, including obtaining the opinion of the concerned court.

Nevertheless, the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 relied primarily on the gravity of the offence and a general apprehension that the petitioner might commit a serious offence after release, without identifying specific supporting material or demonstrating an objective assessment of his conduct, prolonged incarceration, reformation prospects and other relevant factors.

Applying the statutory and precedential requirement of reasoned and comprehensive consideration, the Court held that the authority had exercised its remission power mechanically and that the order failed to satisfy the standards of fairness and objectivity.

It held that the rejection of remission was unsustainable because it was based principally on the gravity of the offence and an unsupported general apprehension, without proper consideration of all relevant factors.

The order dated 12.06.2026 was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of remission and release him forthwith, subject to the condition that he was not required in any other case and to the usual terms and conditions under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968.

No order as to costs was made.