In a writ petition filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court against an order dated 10-04-2026 by Additional Secretary, Home and Jail Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, whereby the petitioner’s case for remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 was rejected, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal granted the benefit of remission to the petitioner.
The petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment after his conviction for offences punishable under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by a judgment dated 29-01-2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari. The said conviction for gang rape upon a 15-year-old minor girl, was affirmed by this Court by an order dated 23-09-2015 and a Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was dismissed by an order dated 09-09-2016. The petitioner contended that he had become eligible for consideration of premature release under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968.
The Court referred to Section 432 of the CrPC read with Rule 358(7)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and stated that the underlying object of the said provision was reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely punitive. It was noted that the petitioner had undergone substantial period of incarceration and that his case had been duly recommended by the jail superintendent. It was also found to be evident that the trial court had also furnished a favourable opinion in the petitioner’s favour.
It was found that the respondents did not bring any adverse material on record apart from a bail reference to the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. The Court stated that rejecting the petitioner’s claim in a mechanical manner would run contrary to the statutory scheme as well as the reformative principles governing grant of premature release. The Court said that the impugned order did not reflect consideration of the settled principles of law, which is why it could not be held to be sustainable in law.
The Court said that the philosophy of premature release is reformative and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive and that its object is to encourage reformation of prisoners and facilitate their reintegration into the mainstream of society after they had undergone a substantial period of incarceration and exhibited satisfactory conduct. Considering the circumstances, the Court said that denial of remission without any cogent or substantive material adverse to the petitioner would amount to an arbitrary exercise of power and run contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The impugned order was set aside by the Court after noting that the said order neither disclosed any independent application of mind nor assigned any intelligible reason for discarding the favourable material on record. Hence, the present petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner under Section 432 of CrPC and to release him, if not required in any other case.
