Gopal Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 915 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Gopal Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                        1




                                                                      2026:CGHC:13926-DB
                                                                                      NAFR
                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                            WPCR No. 161 of 2026
                   Gopal Ram S/o Shiv Kumar Sahu, aged about 36 years Convicted
                   Prisoner No. 3831/2019 R/o Village- Gorakhpur Police Station Sahaspur
                   Lohara District- Kabirdham (C.G.)
                                                                                ... Petitioner
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA                                             versus
                   1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department of Home
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
                   Affairs (Jail) Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa
                   Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
                   2 - The Upper Chief Secretary Department of Jail Mahanadi Bhawan
                   New Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
                   3 - The Director General Jail and Correctional Services Jail Headquarter
                   Sector 19 Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
                   4 - The Superintendent of Jail Central Jail- Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
                                                                            ... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For Respondent/State : 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 24.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Saraf, 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 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order 14-02-2026 passed by the Respondent no.2 (Annexure P/1) and kindly grant the remission prescribed under section 473 of the BNSS/432(2) of the Cr.P.C.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent's authority to proceed the petitioner's matter for grant of remission under section 432(2) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and take decision accordingly afresh for grant of remission to the petitioner within stipulated time and disposed off the petition with that directions as passed in similar matter by this Hon'ble Court in WP(Cr.)No. 445/2025 Deepan Singh order dated 05-08-2025.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed."

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

Petitioner herein has been convicted on 29-01-20211 for offences

punishable under Section 302, 392, 120-B, 201 of IPC by the learned

Additional Session's Judge Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) passed in

Sessions Trial No. 26/2009 and he is in jail since 26.05.2009 and is

undergoing R.I. for life imprisonment and fine and Cr.A No. 135/20211

filed against the said impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence has also been dismissed by this Hon'ble High Court by

upholding the judgment of conviction. He further submitted that the

Petitioner is in custody since 26.05.2009 and has undergone more than

20 years of incarceration as on 10.06.2025, thereby becoming eligible

for consideration of remission under the applicable policy. During this

long period, the Petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail, has

shown signs of reformation, and has expressed genuine remorse for his

past actions. He has undertaken that he shall not repeat any such

offence and desires to reintegrate into society to lead a peaceful life with

his family while fulfilling his social and personal responsibilities. He

further submits that the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,

Bemetara, by order dated 03.12.2024, has given a positive "no

objection" opinion for grant of remission, and the Superintendent,

Central Jail, Durg, has also recommended his case for remission. It is

further submitted that despite the positive recommendations of the trial

Court and jail authorities, the District Magistrate, Bemetara, arbitrarily

rejected the Petitioner's claim on 16.09.2025 on vague and speculative

grounds, merely stating that there is a possibility of the Petitioner

reoffending in future, without any material basis or objective

assessment. The subsequent rejection dated 14.02.2026 by

Respondent No. 2 is also cryptic and non-speaking, as it relies solely on

the negative opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of

Police without independent application of mind. The authorities have

failed to properly consider relevant factors such as the Petitioner's long

incarceration, reformation, good conduct, and favorable

recommendations, thereby rendering the impugned orders arbitrary and

violative of principles of fairness, as such, the denial of remission

defeats the reformative purpose of punishment and is contrary to law

governing remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned orders be set aside

and the Respondents be directed to grant remission and release the

Petitioner prematurely, or in the alternative, reconsider his case in a fair,

just, and reasoned manner in accordance with law.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the Petitioner

has been convicted for grave and heinous offences punishable under

Sections 302, 392, 120-B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, involving

serious acts against society, and is undergoing life imprisonment

pursuant to a duly affirmed judgment of conviction. The appeal preferred

by the Petitioner has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court,

thereby upholding the findings of the learned trial court. Considering the

nature and gravity of the offences, the manner in which they were

committed, and their adverse impact on society at large, the case of the

Petitioner does not warrant exercise of discretionary relief of remission.

It is further submitted that the competent authorities, including the

District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Bemetara, after due

consideration of all relevant aspects, have given negative opinions

regarding grant of remission to the Petitioner. The apprehension

recorded by the District Magistrate that there exists a likelihood of the

Petitioner reverting to criminal activities cannot be said to be unfounded,

as such opinions are based on local inputs, antecedents, and overall

assessment of the Petitioner's suitability for release. Under Section

432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such opinions are relevant

and have rightly been relied upon by the State Government while

rejecting the Petitioner's claim. It is also submitted that grant of

remission is not a matter of right but a matter of policy and discretion to

be exercised by the State in larger public interest. The mere completion

of a particular period of incarceration or good conduct in jail does not

automatically entitle a convict to premature release, especially in cases

involving serious offences like murder and conspiracy. The impugned

orders dated 16.09.2025 and 14.02.2026 have been passed after due

consideration and do not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness

warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, the present

petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully

perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record.

6. The Petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under

Sections 302, 392, 120-B and 201 of the IPC and is in custody since

26.05.2009. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has completed more

than 20 years of incarceration as on 10.06.2025. The material placed on

record further reveals that the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,

Bemetara, by order dated 03.12.2024, has given a positive "no

objection" opinion for grant of remission, and the Superintendent,

Central Jail, Durg, has also recommended the case of the Petitioner on

the basis of his satisfactory conduct and reformation during

incarceration.

7. The rejection of the Petitioner's claim by the District Magistrate

dated 16.09.2025 and its affirmation by Respondent No. 2 vide order

dated 14.02.2026 are primarily founded upon a negative opinion

expressing apprehension of possible future criminal conduct. However,

such rejection does not disclose any objective material and is evidently

based on conjectures. This Court finds that the impugned orders are

non-speaking and reflect non-application of mind, particularly when the

relevant considerations such as long incarceration, good conduct,

reformation, and favorable recommendations have not been duly

weighed.

8. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Section 358(7)(viii) of the

Chhattisgarh Jail Manual / Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which

contemplates consideration of premature release of life convicts who

have undergone the prescribed period of sentence, subject to

assessment of their conduct, reformation, and overall suitability for

reintegration into society. The said provision embodies the reformative

approach of penology and mandates that eligible prisoners be

considered fairly and objectively. In the present case, the Petitioner

satisfies the eligibility criteria inasmuch as he has completed more than

the requisite period of incarceration and has maintained good conduct,

as also reflected from the recommendation of the jail authorities. The

adverse opinion of the District Magistrate, in absence of supporting

material, cannot override the statutory scheme and the reformative

intent underlying the said provision.

9. It is well settled that though remission under Section 432 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary, such discretion must be

exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, reported

in (2000) 7 SCC 626, has laid down that while considering premature

release, authorities must evaluate factors such as whether the offence

affects society at large, the likelihood of recurrence, and the potential for

the convict's reformation. Similarly, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government

of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 161 it has been held

that orders relating to remission are subject to judicial review if they are

arbitrary, mala fide, or based on irrelevant considerations. Further, in

State of Haryana v. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the benefit of remission

policy must be extended in a fair and consistent manner.

10. 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.

11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the Petitioner's

claim is based on mere conjectures and not on any cogent material. The

positive opinion of the sentencing Court and recommendation of the jail

authorities have not been assigned due weightage. The impugned

orders, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

12. Considering his long period of incarceration, satisfactory conduct,

favorable opinions of the competent authorities and absence of any

statutory embargo, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to the

benefit of premature release. The action of the respondent authorities in

denying such benefit on an erroneous interpretation of the Rule is

arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as

explained in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (1974) 4

SCC 3.

13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed. The

impugned orders dated 16.09.2025 passed by the District Magistrate

and its affirmation by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 14.02.2026

are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to

grant the benefit of remission to the Petitioner and release him forthwith,

if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual

terms and conditions as may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail

Rules, 1968. No order as to costs.

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




Chandra