For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate
2. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following
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 14.02.2026, whereby the competent authority has
rejected the petitioner's application for premature release from
prison by purportedly invoking 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 14.02.2026 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 14.02.2026 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 14.02.2026, 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
respondents 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 14.02.2026 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
