Santosh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1860 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Santosh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                           1




                                                                         2026:CGHC:17728-DB
                                                                                        NAFR

                                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                WPCR No. 199 of 2026

                       Santosh Sahu S/o Shri Asharam Sahu, Aged About 44 Years R/o-

                       Village- Sonesilli, Police Station- Gobra Nawapaara, District-Raipur

                       (C.G) Presently Is Prisoner No. 9167/ 124 In Central Jail, Raipur,

                       District-Raipur (C.G.)

                                                                                ... Petitioner(s)

                                                        versus

                       1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Jail,

                             Government of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,

                             Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code -

                             492002

                       2.    Under Secretary Department of Jail, Government of Chhattisgarh

                             Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur,

                             District-Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code- 492002

                       3.    Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services , Jail

                             Headquarters, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur,

                             District-Raipur (C.G), Pin Code-492002

                       4.    Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) Pin

                             Code-492001
          Digitally
          signed by
          BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE     Date:
          2026.04.20
          18:26:37
          +0530
                                       2

5.   Collector, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), Pin Code-492001

                                                        ...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

20.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard

Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for

the State/respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:

"a. Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case.

b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari & quash and set aside the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner's application for premature release from prison has been incorrectly rejected by invoking Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968.

c. Hold that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of premature release from jail in accordance with

provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968.

d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State Authorities to grant/accord the benefit of premature release from Jail to the petitioner herein and to release the petitioner from jail forthwith.

e. Grant the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,

along with 15 other co-accused persons, was tried for offences

punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 460, 323/149 and 342 of the

Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2011 passed

in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.), the petitioner and the co-

accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life (thrice)

under Section 302/149 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for ten years

under Section 460 of the IPC, along with other sentences.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner, along with seven other

co-accused, preferred CRA No. 315 of 2012 before this Court, while the

remaining co-accused preferred CRA No. 835 of 2011. This Court, vide

judgment dated 08.11.2017, dismissed CRA No. 315 of 2012, whereas

CRA No. 835 of 2011 was allowed. The petitioner thereafter preferred

SLP(Crl.) No.4433 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which

came to be dismissed on 16.07.2018. The petitioner is presently lodged

in Central Jail, Raipur and has undergone more than 22 years of

imprisonment including remission and more than 19 years, 08 months

and 10 days of actual incarceration.

5. Learned counsel submits that upon becoming eligible for

consideration of premature release under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules,

1968, the Jail Superintendent sought opinion from the learned Presiding

Judge, who, vide memo dated 12.06.2024, expressed no objection.

However, the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground of bar

under Rule 358. The petitioner earlier approached this Court in WPCR

No. 357 of 2025, wherein liberty was granted to file a fresh application

in light of the amended Rule 358. Despite submitting a fresh application,

the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 02.02.2026.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 358(6)

(ix) applies only where a prisoner is guilty of murder in "two or more

cases". It is contended that the petitioner's conviction arises out of a

single incident and a single sessions trial, and therefore the Rule has

been wrongly applied. It is further submitted that the impugned order is

mechanical and suffers from non-application of mind.

7. It is further contended that the petitioner has maintained

satisfactory conduct in jail. It is also submitted that in the case of a

similarly situated co-accused, namely Rakesh Sahu, this Court in

WPCR No. 108 of 2026, vide order dated 23.02.2026, has already

quashed a similar rejection order and held him entitled to premature

release under the Rules. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to

parity.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has

been convicted for three counts of murder and the gravity of the offence

warrants strict application of Rule 358(6)(ix). It is contended that the

Rule must be purposively interpreted and that the petitioner has not

completed 20 years of actual imprisonment.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

10. The controversy in the present case revolves around the

interpretation of Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968,

which provides that a prisoner "who is guilty of murder in two or more

cases" shall be considered for premature release only after completion

of 20 years of actual imprisonment.

11. The expression used in the Rule is "two or more cases" and not

"two or more murders". The distinction is clear and significant. In

criminal law, a "case" refers to a distinct prosecution arising from a

separate incident culminating in a separate trial. The Rule, therefore,

applies only where a person is convicted in two or more distinct cases

of murder.

12. In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner was tried

and convicted in a single sessions trial arising out of one incident.

Merely because there are multiple victims does not convert a single

case into multiple cases. The interpretation adopted by the respondent

authorities equating "multiple murders" with "multiple cases" is contrary

to the plain language of the Rule and legally unsustainable.

13. It is well settled that executive authorities must act strictly within

the framework of statutory provisions and cannot expand their scope by

interpretative processes. The impugned order, being based on a

manifestly erroneous interpretation of Rule 358(6)(ix), is liable to be set

aside.

14. Apart from the above, the record reveals that the petitioner has

undergone more than 22 years of imprisonment including remission and

over 19 years of actual incarceration; his conduct in jail is satisfactory;

and no adverse opinion has been expressed by the competent

authorities.

15. Further, in the case of similarly situated co-accused Rakesh Sahu,

this Court in WPCR No. 108 of 2026 has already granted relief on

identical grounds. Denial of similar benefit to the present petitioner

would be violative of the principle of parity and Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish,

reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216 and Laxman Naskar v. State of West

Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626 has held that consideration for premature

release must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant factors.

17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 is quashed

and set aside.

18. It is declared that Rule 358(6)(ix) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules,

1968 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

19. In view of the petitioner's long incarceration, satisfactory conduct,

and absence of any statutory embargo, the petitioner is held entitled to

the benefit of premature release.

20. The respondent authorities are directed to release the petitioner

forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to usual terms and

conditions.

21. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

                             Sd/-                                  Sd/-
                   (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                  (Ramesh Sinha)
                            Judge                              Chief Justice




Brijmohan