(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
1. Heard Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing
2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
e) Grant the cost of the petition to the Petitioner.
f) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner
challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned
order dated 02.02.2026, whereby the competent authority has
rejected the petitioner's application for premature release from
prison by purportedly invoking Rule 358(6)(ix) and Rule 358(7)
(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. It is the case of the
petitioner that the impugned order is ex facie a non-speaking and
mechanical order passed without assigning any reasons as
mandatorily required under Rule 358(7)(viii), thereby reflecting
complete non-application of mind and violating settled principles
of law that reasons constitute the soul of justice. It is further
contended that the authorities have grossly misinterpreted Rule
358(6)(ix) inasmuch as the petitioner, though convicted in a single
case involving the death of three persons, has been wrongly
treated as falling under the category of "guilty of murder in two or
more cases", which is legally impermissible and contrary to the
legislative intent underlying the provision. It is submitted that such
an erroneous interpretation renders the entire scheme of
premature release under the Rules otiose and defeats the object
of the amendment by effectively postponing consideration of
eligible prisoners. The petitioner also relies upon parity, stating
that a co-accused, namely Rakesh Sahu, in an identical factual
matrix, had challenged a similar rejection order which came to be
quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2026, holding him
entitled to the benefit of premature release, and therefore, on
grounds of parity and equal treatment, the petitioner also claims
entitlement to the same relief under the applicable provisions of
the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of
the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 unequivocally
demonstrates that the same is a non-speaking and mechanical
order, passed in gross violation of the mandate contained in Rule
358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, as it fails to
assign any reasonable or logical reasons for rejection of the
Petitioner's claim for premature release. It is contended that the
impugned order suffers from complete non-application of mind,
inasmuch as there is not even a semblance of consideration of
the relevant statutory provisions or the parameters prescribed
under Rule 358, including the mandatory inquiry on specified
factors, the opinion of the concerned authorities, the conduct and
behaviour of the petitioner in jail, and the likelihood of reformation,
thereby rendering the decision arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have not
only ignored relevant materials but have also taken into account
irrelevant considerations, without even calling for requisite reports
such as that of the welfare officer, thus vitiating the entire
decision-making process. It is emphatically argued that the
rejection is founded upon a patent misinterpretation of Rule
358(6)(ix), as the petitioner has been involved in only one case,
albeit involving multiple deaths, which by no stretch of
interpretation can be equated with "guilty of murder in two or more
cases," the expression "cases" clearly signifying distinct
prosecutions arising out of separate occurrences, and not the
number of victims in a single case, and any attempt to expand the
scope of the Rule amounts to impermissible executive overreach
contrary to legislative intent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that such
erroneous interpretation defeats the very object of the amendment
and renders the scheme of premature release illusory and
redundant. It is also submitted that the impugned order has been
passed without considering the petitioner's period of detention
and other relevant factors, and is thus arbitrary, irrational and
violative of the principles of fairness, reasonableness and non-
arbitrariness governing State action under public law, including
the Wednesbury principle, legitimate expectation and the doctrine
that discretion must be exercised on relevant considerations. It is
argued that the respondent State, being an instrumentality under
Article 12 of the Constitution, is duty bound to act fairly,
reasonably and in accordance with law and cannot exercise its
powers in an unfettered or whimsical manner. The impugned
action, being bereft of cogent reasons, reflective of mala fide and
perverse exercise of discretion, and in flagrant disregard of the
statutory scheme, is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside,
and the present case warrants interference by this Court.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits
that the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 has been passed strictly
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh
Prison Rules, 1968, after due consideration of the nature and gravity
of the offence committed by the petitioner and the overall facts and
circumstances of the case. It is contended that the petitioner stands
convicted for a heinous offence involving the murder of multiple
persons, which has serious adverse impact on society at large, and
therefore, the competent authority has rightly exercised its discretion
in declining premature release. It is further submitted that the
expression "guilty of murder in two or more cases" under Rule
358(6)(ix) has been rightly interpreted in the broader context of the
gravity and multiplicity of the offence, and the same cannot be given
a narrow or pedantic meaning so as to defeat the object of the Rule,
which is to exclude offenders involved in multiple killings from the
benefit of premature release. It is argued that the decision of the
State Government is based on relevant considerations including the
severity of the crime, its societal impact, and the need to maintain
public confidence in the criminal justice system, and therefore,
cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal merely on the ground that
the order is concise. It is also submitted that the power to grant or
refuse premature release is discretionary in nature, and unless it is
shown to be manifestly arbitrary or perverse, the same does not
warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. It is further contended
that the petitioner cannot claim premature release as a matter of
right, and the case of the co-accused cannot be mechanically
applied as each case is required to be considered on its own facts
and merits. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed
that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be
dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents placed on record, including the impugned
order dated 02.02.2026, the judgment of conviction as well as the
order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation.
8. It is manifest from a bare perusal of the impugned order that the
same is a non-speaking order, completely bereft of reasons. The
statutory mandate as engrafted under Rule 358(7)(viii) of the
Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 unequivocally requires that while
rejecting a case for premature release, the State Government must
assign "reasonable and logical reasons." The requirement of
recording reasons is not an empty formality but a substantive
safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power. The impugned order,
however, does not disclose any application of mind to the relevant
facts and circumstances of the case, nor does it reflect consideration
of the material placed on record, thereby vitiating the decision-
making process.
9. It is further evident that the impugned order does not reflect any
consideration of the relevant statutory parameters as
contemplated under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules,
1968, particularly the factors relating to the nature of the offence,
the conduct and behaviour of the prisoner during incarceration,
the opinion of the concerned authorities, and the likelihood of
reformation. The decision appears to have been rendered in a
mechanical manner without due evaluation of the requisite reports
and materials, which are indispensable for a fair and informed
adjudication of a claim for premature release, thereby rendering
the exercise arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
10. This Court also finds substance in the submission that the
respondent Authorities have misdirected themselves in
interpreting Rule 358(6)(ix) by equating involvement in a single
case involving multiple victims with "guilty of murder in two or
more cases." The expression employed in the Rule is clear and
unambiguous, referring to distinct cases and not to the number of
victims in a single occurrence. Such an erroneous interpretation
defeats the legislative intent and results in an impermissible
expansion of the scope of the disqualification, thereby vitiating the
impugned decision.
11. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that
the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and the matter is
remanded back to the competent authority to reconsider the
petitioner's case afresh, strictly in accordance with law and in the
light of the observations made hereinabove. The respondent
authorities shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after due
consideration of all relevant factors and materials, within a period
of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
