[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Choubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14243-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 109 of 2026
Rajendra Kumar Choubey S/o Late Shri Makhan Prasad Choubey Aged
About 79 Years R/o Ward No. 4 Shilta Para, Simga, Distt. - Baloda
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed
Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.03.27
11:44:29 +0530
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Jail,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.)
3 - State Sentence Review Board Through Its Chairman, Raipur, (C.G.)
4 - Director General Of Police (Prison And Correctional Services) Sector
19, Nava Raipur, (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for entire records pertaining to the case of Petitioner's
Son for its kind perusal.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set
aside the order dated 12/12/2025(Annexure P/1)
passed by the State Sentence Review Board.
10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the State Sentence Review Board to re-consider
the case of the petitioner's son and further it may direct
the jail authority to remit the sentence of the
petitioner's son and release him.
10.3 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to consider the
award of appropriate compensation on account of
unnecessary detention of the petitioner's son.
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper, including cost of the petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the
father of the convict Raju @ Devendra Choubey, who stands convicted
under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC by the judgment dated
29.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bemetara, District Durg in Sessions Trial No. 44/2004, and has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine. It is
submitted that the said conviction has attained finality, as the criminal
appeals preferred before the Court were dismissed vide judgment dated
17.09.2010, and thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding
the connected appeals, acquitted one co-accused Mahesh but
maintained the conviction of the petitioner's son and other co-accused
vide judgment dated 21.08.2014. It is further contended that other co-
accused persons, namely Beenu @ Chandraprakash and Shashi
Tripathi, have already been released after undergoing their respective
sentences, thereby placing the petitioner's son on a similar footing for
consideration of remission. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being
aged about 79 years, had preferred a representation before His
Excellency the Governor, which was duly forwarded through the
competent authorities for consideration under the applicable rules.
4. It is further submitted that in light of the amendment dated
23.04.2025 to Rule 5(i) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, a life
convict who has undergone actual imprisonment of 14 years becomes
eligible for consideration of remission, and the petitioner's son has
already undergone more than 20 years of incarceration. It is contended
that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WPCr No.
427/2025, the State Sentence Review Board was required to consider
the case expeditiously. However, the representation submitted on behalf
of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 12.12.2025 without
proper application of mind. Learned counsel submits that the impugned
rejection order is arbitrary and unsustainable, as it fails to consider
relevant factors including the long period of incarceration, the release of
similarly placed co-accused, the death of the convict's wife leaving
behind two children, and the advanced age and medical condition of the
petitioner and his wife, who are dependent upon the convict. It is thus
urged that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appropriate
directions be issued for reconsideration of the petitioner's case in
accordance with law.
5. Learned State counsel, per contra, submits that the petition is
devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed, as the impugned order
passed by the State Sentence Review Board is legal, justified and in
accordance with the applicable rules and policy governing remission. It
is contended that the conviction of the petitioner's son for the offences
punishable under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC has attained
finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the gravity and nature of
the offence, involving a premeditated act of murder pursuant to criminal
conspiracy, have been duly taken into consideration by the competent
authority while rejecting the claim for premature release. It is further
submitted that the right to seek remission is not a vested or absolute
right, but is subject to the discretion of the appropriate Government, to
be exercised on consideration of various relevant factors including the
nature of offence, conduct of the prisoner and impact on society.
6. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner's son is not
comparable with that of other co-accused who have been released, as
each case is required to be examined on its own facts and
circumstances. The State Sentence Review Board has duly considered
the relevant materials, including the reports from the jail authorities and
other concerned departments, and has arrived at a conscious decision
to reject the representation. It is contended that the amendment to Rule
5(i) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 only provides eligibility for
consideration and does not confer any automatic right to release upon
completion of a particular period of incarceration. The grounds urged by
the petitioner, including personal and family circumstances, though
sympathetic, cannot override the seriousness of the offence and the
parameters governing remission. It is thus submitted that no
interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings,
annexures and material available on record.
8. The issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is
with regard to the legality of the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the
State Sentence Review Board rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
premature release of his son, namely Raju @ Devendra Choubey.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's son has been convicted
under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC and that such conviction
has attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further not in
dispute that he has undergone more than 20 years of incarceration.
10. The record reflects that other co-accused persons have already
been released after completion of their sentence, whereas the case of
the petitioner's son has been treated differently without any justifiable
basis. The impugned order does not disclose any cogent reason for
such differential treatment.
11. The amended Rule 5(i) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968
provides that a life convict who has undergone actual imprisonment of
14 years becomes eligible for consideration for premature release. The
petitioner's son having undergone more than the prescribed period
squarely falls within the zone of consideration.
12. The impugned order dated 12.12.2025, however, proceeds
without proper consideration of the relevant factors, including the long
period of incarceration, the conduct of the prisoner, and the surrounding
circumstances such as the death of his wife and the condition of his
dependent family members. The order is conspicuously silent on these
aspects and reflects non-application of mind.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish,
reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, has held that a convict has a right to be
considered for premature release in accordance with the applicable
policy and that such consideration must be fair, reasonable and in terms
of the prevailing Rules. Similarly, in Laxman Naskar v. State of West
Bengal, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid
down that while considering premature release, the authorities must
examine factors such as the nature of the offence, conduct of the
prisoner in jail, and the likelihood of his reverting to criminal activities.
The petitioner's case satisfies these parameters.
14. The philosophy underlying premature release is reformative rather
than retributive. Long incarceration coupled with demonstrated good
conduct and positive reports from competent authorities entitles a
prisoner to objective and fair consideration under the applicable Rules.
Once the statutory bar is found inapplicable, and the relevant authorities
have not expressed any adverse opinion, denial of premature release
on a misconceived interpretation of the Rule amounts to arbitrariness
and offends the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. It is settled law that while remission or premature release cannot
be claimed as a matter of right, the consideration thereof must be fair,
reasonable and in accordance with the governing rules. An arbitrary or
mechanical rejection of such claim cannot be sustained.
16. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner's son
has undergone more than two decades of incarceration, has become
eligible under the applicable Rules, and there is no adverse material
placed on record disentitling him from such benefit, denial of premature
release would be unjustified.
17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
18. It is held that the petitioner's son, namely Raju @ Devendra
Choubey, is entitled to the benefit of premature release in terms of the
applicable Rules.
19. The respondent authorities are directed to release the petitioner's
son forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case, subject to
compliance of usual terms and conditions as may be imposed under the
Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968.
20. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
