Unsupported apprehension of breach of peace cannot block remission; Chhattisgarh High Court orders life convict’s release after 17 years in custody

The petitioner, a life convict, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering a witness in connection with an earlier criminal proceeding arising from a land dispute.

The Trial Court convicted him in S.T. No. 34/2009 by judgment dated 19 April 2011 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000; his criminal appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 14 September 2015.

After undergoing more than 14 years of imprisonment, the petitioner’s case was considered for remission/premature release under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Jail Superintendent and the Presiding Judge gave favourable recommendations/opinions.

However, the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police expressed apprehension that his release could result in a breach of peace. Relying principally on those adverse opinions, the State rejected his remission application by order dated 5 January 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the State’s order rejecting the petitioner’s remission/premature-release application was vitiated by non-application of mind and failure to consider relevant factors under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and Section 432 CrPC?

2. Whether a general apprehension of breach of peace, without specific and objective supporting material, could by itself justify rejection of remission despite satisfactory prison conduct and favourable recommendations?

3. Whether the High Court could direct reconsideration and release of the petitioner in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226?

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution over the remission decision. Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and Sections 432 and 432(2) CrPC require the competent authority to consider remission through an objective, meaningful and reasoned assessment rather than mechanically relying on the nature of the offence or administrative opinions.

In Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595, the Supreme Court identified relevant factors including the societal impact of the offence, the possibility of recurrence, the convict’s continuing criminal potential, whether further imprisonment serves a fruitful purpose, and the socio-economic condition of the family.

Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2022 SC 2017, requires the Presiding Judge’s opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC to reflect an objective assessment.

Rajo v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, holds that such opinions are only inputs and cannot substitute the Government’s independent consideration.

State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, and Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1, establish that remission is discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and on relevant considerations, consistent with the reformative purpose of punishment.

The petitioner’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was treated as a relevant circumstance but not as a conclusive bar to remission.

The Court held that the impugned order was cryptic and primarily relied on the District Magistrate’s and Superintendent of Police’s apprehension of breach of peace, without identifying specific material showing a likelihood of recurrence or actual disturbance of public order.

The authority failed to meaningfully assess the petitioner’s long incarceration, satisfactory conduct in prison, reformation, likelihood of recidivism, rehabilitation prospects, and whether continued imprisonment served a constructive purpose, as required by Laxman Naskar and the other governing precedents.

Although the murder of a witness in an earlier case was a serious and relevant factor, it had to be weighed against the petitioner’s post-conviction conduct and present circumstances; it could not justify mechanical rejection of remission.

The favourable recommendations of the Jail Superintendent and Presiding Judge were not determinative, but they were relevant materials that the State was required to consider independently.

Consequently, the State’s decision suffered from non-application of mind and was arbitrary and unsustainable.

It directed the authorities to reconsider and grant the petitioner the benefit of premature release in accordance with the applicable remission policy and law, noting his substantial incarceration, remission earned, satisfactory conduct, and absence of material indicating likely recidivism or disturbance of public peace.

The respondents were further directed to release him forthwith, if he was not required in any other case, in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.