Facts
The petitioner was convicted on 29.06.2013 for offences including murder (Section 302/149 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 28/2011.
Source reference: p. 2His appeals were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court by July 2022.
Source reference: p. 3Having undergone over 15 years of actual incarceration by 2026, the petitioner sought remission under the Prison Rules.
Source reference: p. 2-3While the Court of conviction (First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar) and the Jail Superintendent provided positive recommendations for his release based on his reformative conduct, the State Government rejected his claim on 22.03.2026.
Source reference: p. 3, 5This rejection was based solely on an adverse recommendation by the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board.
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner challenged this order as arbitrary.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the State Government’s rejection of the petitioner’s remission claim was arbitrary and lacked substantive reasoning despite positive recommendations from the judiciary and jail authorities.
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 92. Whether the State Government is required to exercise its discretionary power of remission under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita/CrPC in a fair and non-arbitrary manner.
Source reference: p. 7 / para. 11Law Applied
Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (formerly Section 432 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the power to suspend or remit sentences.
Source reference: p. 3, 7Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 (as amended in 2025), which emphasize a reformative approach to premature release.
Source reference: p. 6Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, establishing that remission must consider the likelihood of future crime and reformation.
Source reference: p. 7Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, which subjects remission orders to judicial review for non-application of mind.
Source reference: p. 7State of Haryana v. Jagdish, which mandates consistent and fair application of remission policies.
Source reference: p. 7-8Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner satisfied the quantitative requirement of 15 years of incarceration and the qualitative requirement of good conduct.
Source reference: p. 5, 8The Court reasoned that the State Government failed to assign specific reasons as to why the positive opinions of the convicting Judge and jail authorities were insufficient.
Source reference: p. 6, 9The Court noted that the rejection was founded "principally" upon the adverse recommendation of the Review Board without any objective material suggesting the petitioner’s release would be detrimental to society.
Source reference: p. 6, 9By ignoring reformative progress and the removal of the earlier statutory bar on remission via the 2025 amendment, the State’s decision-making process was found to be mechanical and unreasoned.
Source reference: p. 6-7The Court also applied the principle of parity with Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, where relief was granted under similar facts.
Source reference: p. 3, 8Holding
The Court answered that the State’s discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised reasonably.
The Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 10Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 22.03.2026. The respondents were directed to extend the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, subject to usual terms and conditions.
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
MANISH KUMAR RATREvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in