Chhattisgarh HC Orders Immediate Release of Lifer After State Rejects Remission Without Applying Mind
The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed a January 2026 remission rejection, finding the State mechanically relied on adverse police and district authority opinions while ignoring jail conduct and reformation.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, on 20 July 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by Mohan, son of Nadi Panka, a murder convict who had spent more than twenty years in Central Jail, Bastar, Jagdalpur. The court quashed an order dated 5 January 2026 by which the State had rejected his application for remission of jail sentence, and directed the respondent authorities to release him forthwith. The bench found the impugned order cryptic, non-speaking, and the product of mechanical reliance on adverse opinions from the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, with no independent evaluation of the petitioner's conduct, reformation, or likelihood of recidivism — factors that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held to be central to any remission decision.
The Conviction and the Remission Process
An FIR was registered on 17 May 2010 arising from a land dispute during which Kanak Bai was killed and one Kamlu was assaulted. The complainant was Duryodhan. Mohan faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2010 on charges under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On 14 March 2013, the trial court convicted him under both provisions: life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100 for the murder, and rigorous imprisonment of seven years with a fine of Rs. 200 for the attempt to murder.
He challenged the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2013 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. A Division Bench dismissed that appeal on 20 September 2021. He continued to serve his sentence in Central Jail, Bastar.
After Mohan had served more than fourteen years, his case was taken up for consideration under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner Rules, 1968 read with Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent No. 7, the Jail Superintendent, forwarded a recommendation in his favour to the Presiding Judge for the court's opinion. The Presiding Judge gave a favourable opinion by memo dated 9 January 2025.
The matter then went to respondent No. 4, the Chhattisgarh Rajya Dandadesh Punarvilokan Board. The Board relied on the opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Bastar (respondents No. 5 and 6), who recommended rejection on the ground that the petitioner's release would cause a breach of peace. Acting on the Board's recommendation, respondent No. 1 — the State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Home/Jail — rejected Mohan's remission application by order dated 5 January 2026.
The Competing Arguments
Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, appearing for Mohan, challenged the 5 January 2026 order as illegal and contrary to Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner Rules, 1968 and Section 432 of CrPC. She argued that the State had ignored the favourable opinions of both the Jail Superintendent and the Presiding Judge, and had based the rejection solely on a generalised apprehension of breach of peace voiced by the police and the district administration. She pointed out that Mohan's conduct throughout incarceration had been good, as recorded by the Jail Superintendent. She further submitted that Mohan was arrested at age 38 and was 53 at the time of the petition, having served approximately twenty years. Counsel placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajo v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, and Joseph v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1211.
Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate for the State, defended the impugned order. He submitted that the conviction was for heinous offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, and that the gravity and nature of the offence are legitimately relevant to remission. He contended that the competent authority had considered all inputs under Section 432(2) CrPC, including the Presiding Judge's opinion, and had arrived at a conscious decision. He relied on State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, and Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 1, to argue that remission is not a matter of right and must be exercised cautiously with public interest in view.
How the Bench Reasoned
The Division Bench identified the core defect in the impugned order: the rejection rested primarily on the adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, “without any independent application of mind by the competent authority to the relevant statutory and judicially settled parameters governing remission.”
The bench drew on Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595, which set out five factors that must be considered when examining a remission case: whether the offence is an individual act of crime not affecting society at large; whether there is any chance of future recurrence; whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime; whether any fruitful purpose is served by continued imprisonment; and the socio-economic condition of the convict's family. The court found no discussion of any of these parameters in the impugned order. The authority had also failed to evaluate Mohan's conduct during incarceration, his reformation, or the likelihood of recidivism.
The bench referred to Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., AIR 2022 SC 2017 : (2022) 4 SCR 1103, in which the Supreme Court had emphasised that the opinion sought under Section 432(2) CrPC must be based on objective assessment and not merely on the nature of the offence. The court also applied Rajo v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, where the Supreme Court held that “the appropriate Government is required to take an independent decision based on all relevant considerations including post-conviction conduct; the opinion of the Presiding Judge cannot be given primacy if it merely reiterates the circumstances of conviction.”
While the State had cited Jagdish and Sriharan to stress caution, the bench treated those decisions as reinforcing rather than undermining the requirement for a reasoned and non-arbitrary exercise of the remission power. Both judgments speak of fair and reasonable application of remission policy; neither authorises a blanket rejection grounded only in the original gravity of the offence.
The bench then turned to the specific facts. Mohan had served well beyond the minimum period. His case had been recommended by the Jail Superintendent on the basis of good conduct. The Presiding Judge had given a favourable opinion. There was nothing on record indicating any adverse conduct during incarceration or any material likelihood of threat to society upon release. Against this backdrop, the impugned order's sole reliance on a breach-of-peace apprehension, without engaging any of the reformative parameters, rendered it arbitrary and unsustainable.
Direction to Release Forthwith
Having quashed the order, the bench did not merely remit the matter for fresh consideration. It went further. Given that Mohan had undergone a substantial period of incarceration, had earned remission, had maintained satisfactory conduct in jail, and that there was no material on record indicating likelihood of recidivism, the court directed the respondent authorities to grant him the benefit of premature release directly.
The bench ordered his release forthwith, subject to his not being required in any other case, in accordance with law.
Order
WPCR No. 386 of 2026 was allowed on 20 July 2026. The impugned order dated 5 January 2026 passed by respondent No. 1 was quashed. The respondent authorities were directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case. No order as to costs was made.