1

CGHC010254822026 2026:CGHC:29889-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPCR No. 392 of 2026

Anand Dheemar S/o Shri Dashrath @ Jolo Dheemar Aged About 40

Years (About 22 Years At The Time Of Entry Into Jail), R/o Village-

Mudpar, Police Station- Naila (Earlier It Was Police Outpost- Naila,

Police Station Janjgir), District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

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

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

2.The Under Secretary State of Chhattisgarh, Jail Department,

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

3.The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services

Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter- Prisons And Correctional Services

Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)

4.The Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.)

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government

Advocate.

2

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

15 .07 .2026

1.Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, 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 the

petitioner for it’s kind perusal;

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set-

aside the order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P/1)

issued/passed by the respondent No. 2;

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding

the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner

remission under 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha

Sanhita 2023/432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

1973 and under Rule 358 of C.G. Prisons Rule 1968

and to release the petitioner by granting remission of

rest part of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner

vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated

10.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Session

Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in

Session Trial No. 162 of 2008; and

3

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted

in favour of the petitioner.”

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a

convicted prisoner presently lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.). It is

submitted that the petitioner remained in custody from 04.08.2008 to

29.08.2020 and is again in custody since 27.01.2021. Thus, the

petitioner has undergone about 17 years and 06 months of actual

imprisonment. It is further submitted that, as per the information dated

19.03.2026 supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the

petitioner has earned 05 years, 10 months and 11 days of remission.

Consequently, the petitioner has completed more than 23 years of

sentence, including earned remission.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 10.06.2009 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa

(C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 162/2008 for the offences punishable

under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 (three counts) and 307/149 of the

IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years

under Section 147 IPC, 03 years under Section 148 IPC, imprisonment

for life under Section 302/149 IPC in respect of the murders of

Chhedilal, Bablu @ Pradeep and Bhuru @ Parmanand, and 07 years'

rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC in respect of the

injured Birichh Ram, along with the respective fines and default

4

stipulations. He also submitted that the petitioner's appeal, being

Criminal Appeal No. 598/2014, was dismissed by this Court vide

judgment dated 13.05.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner's appeal before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 197/2018, also

came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2018.

5.It is further contended Learned counsel submits that thereafter the

petitioner's case for remission under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. was

initiated. Accordingly, by letter dated 16.10.2023, the matter was

referred to the learned 1

st

Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District

Janjgir-Champa, for opinion. The learned Judge, vide letter dated

01.11.2023, expressed no objection to the petitioner's release by grant

of remission. Thereafter, on 06.02.2024, the petitioner's case was

forwarded to the competent authority. He further submitted that,

however, the Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Jail Department,

Raipur, by order dated 04.09.2024, rejected the petitioner's claim for

remission on the ground that, in view of Rule 358(3)(g)(two) of the C.G.

Prisons Rules, 1968, the benefit of Section 432 Cr.P.C. could not be

extended to the petitioner.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that being

aggrieved, the petitioner filed WPCR No. 106/2025 on 14.02.2025,

challenging both the validity of Rule 358(3)(g)(two) of the C.G. Prisons

Rules, 1968 and the order dated 04.09.2024. The said writ petition was

allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025, whereby the order

dated 04.09.2024 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the

5

State Government with a direction to reconsider the petitioner's case

afresh after obtaining a fresh opinion from the concerned Sessions

Judge. The State Government was further directed to decide the

petitioner's application within two months from the date of receipt of

such opinion. He further submitted that, pursuant to the aforesaid order,

the petitioner submitted a fresh application for remission on 30.03.2025.

Thereafter, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, by letter dated

01.04.2025, sought the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-

Champa. The petitioner also submitted representations dated

07.04.2025, which were forwarded on 08.04.2025 to the concerned

authorities along with a copy of the order dated 21.03.2025. Since no

opinion was received, a reminder was issued on 10.05.2025, and

thereafter, the learned 1

st

Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, vide

memo dated 20.05.2025, once again expressed no objection to the

petitioner's release on remission.

7.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter

the petitioner's case was forwarded to the Director General, Prisons and

Correctional Services, Chhattisgarh, on 29.05.2025. The petitioner also

submitted an application in August, 2025 seeking his release. On

27.08.2025, the Jail Superintendent prepared the jail report under Rule

358 of the C.G. Prisons Rules, 1968 and, on the same day, sought the

opinion of the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa, regarding the

petitioner's premature release. Subsequently, on 24.09.2025, the

petitioner's case, along with the relevant case details, was again

forwarded to the Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services,

6

Chhattisgarh.

8.It is lastly submitted that despite the earlier order passed by this

Court and the favourable opinions of the learned Sessions Judge dated

01.11.2023 and 20.05.2025, respondent No. 2, by order dated

15.01.2026, again rejected, in substance, the petitioner's case for

premature release by exercising powers under Section 473(1) of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Section

432(1) of the Cr.P.C.], solely on the ground that, in view of Rule 358(6)

of the C.G. Prisons Rules, 1968, the case of a prisoner convicted in a

triple murder case could be placed before the State Sentence Review

Board only after completion of 20 years of actual imprisonment and,

since the petitioner had not completed the said period of actual

imprisonment, his case was held to be not fit for consideration. Hence,

the present petition.

9.On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petitioner's

application for remission and submits that the authorities have rightly

rejected the prayer for grant of remission.

10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

pleadings and documents appended thereto.

11.In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be

appropriate to notice Section 432 of the Cr.P.C (now under Section 473

of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which states as

under :-

“432. Power to suspend or remit sentences.—(1)

7

When any person has been sentenced to punishment

for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at

any time, without conditions or upon any conditions

which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the

execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any

part of the punishment to which he has been

sentenced.

(2) Whenever an application is made to the

appropriate Government for the suspension or

remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government

may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or

by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state

his opinion as to whether the application should be

granted or refused, together with his reasons for such

opinion and also to forward with the statement of such

opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of

such record thereof as exists.

(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been

suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the

appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate

Government may cancel the suspension or remission,

and thereupon the person in whose favour the

sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at

large, be arrested by any police officer, without

warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired

portion of the sentence.

(4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended

or remitted under this section may be one to be

fulfilled by the person in whose favour the sentence is

suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.

(5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules

or special orders, give directions as to the suspension

8

of sentences and the conditions on which petitions

should be presented and dealt with:

Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than

a sentence of fine) passed on a male person above

the age of eighteen years, no such petition by the

person sentenced or by any other person on his

behalf shall be entertained, unless the person

sentenced is in jail, and:

(a) where such petition is made by the person

sentenced, it is presented through the officer in charge

of the jail; or

(b) where such petition is made by any other person, it

contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in

jail.

(6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also

apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under

any section of this Code or of any other law which

restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any

liability upon him or his property.

(7) In this section and in Section 433 of the Cr.P.C.

(now under Section 474 of the BNSS), the expression

“appropriate Government” means,—

(a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence

against, or the Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave

Petition (Crl.) No. 6166 of 2023 (page 7 to 17) order

referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law

relating to a matter to which the executive power of

the Union extends, the Central Government;

(b) in other cases, the Government of the State within

which the offender is sentenced or the said order is

passed.” (emphasis added) Under sub-section (1) of

Section 432 of the CrPC, the appropriate Government

9

has the power to remit the whole or any part of the

punishment of a convict. The remission can be

granted either unconditionally or subject to certain

conditions. As expressly provided under sub-section

(1) of Section 432, actual remission takes effect only

after the convict accepts the conditions. Thus, there is

no doubt that there exists a power in the appropriate

Government to grant remission subject to compliance

with conditions.”

12.Insofar as the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section

432 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Constitution Bench in the case of

Union of India vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Others, reported in

(2016) 7 SCC 1 has approved the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in

(2013) 3 SCC 294. The view taken is that the decision to grant

remission has to be well-informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned.

13.In Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Others, in

CRA No. 4370 of 2024, decided on 21.10.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court

has observed as under:

“11. It is no doubt true that the power to remit a

sentence under Section 432(1) of the Cr.P.C. is

discretionary. One of the considerations for the

exercise of the discretion can be public interest. The

gravity and nature of the offences committed by the

convict are also factors to be considered. The

antecedents of the convict are also relevant. Almost all

the States have a written policy on the grant of

remission under Section 432(1) of the Cr.P.C. For

example, the 1

st

respondent, the State of Gujarat, has

10

a policy that forms part of the Government Resolution

dated 23

rd

January 2014, which was amended from

time to time. The said Government Resolution

incorporates guidelines/policy for consideration of

cases for grant of remission and premature release of

prisoners. The existence of a rational policy is

necessary to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power to

grant a remission under Section 432(1) of the Cr.P.C.

A convict cannot seek remission as a matter of right.

However, he has a right to say that his case for the

grant of remission ought to be considered in

accordance with the law. The power under sub-section

(1) of Section 432 of the CrPC has to be exercised in

a fair and reasonable manner. Therefore, conditions

imposed while exercising the power under sub-section

(1) of Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. must be reasonable.

The conditions must stand the test of scrutiny of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the conditions

imposed are arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiated

due to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. Such arbitrary conditions may also violate the

convict's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

xxx xxx xxx

17. Our conclusions can be summarised as under:

(i) Under subsection (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC or

sub section (1) of Section 473 of the BNSS, the

appropriate Government has the power to remit the

whole or any part of the punishment of a convict. The

remission can be granted either unconditionally or

subject to certain conditions;

(ii) The decision to grant or not to grant remission has

11

to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all

concerned;

(iii) A convict cannot seek remission as a matter of

right. However, he has a right to claim that his case for

the grant of remission ought to be considered in

accordance with the law and/or applicable policy

adopted by the appropriate Government;

(iv) Conditions imposed while exercising the power

under subsection (1) of Section 432 or subsection (1)

of Section 473 of the BNSS must be reasonable. If the

conditions imposed are arbitrary, the conditions will

stand vitiated due to violation of Article 14. Such

arbitrary conditions may violate the convict's rights

under Article 21 of the Constitution;

(v) The effect of remitting the sentence, in part or full,

results in the restoration of liberty of a convict. If the

order granting remission is to be cancelled or revoked,

it will naturally affect the liberty of the convict. The

reason is that when action is taken under subsection

(3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of

Section 473 of the BNSS, it results in the convict

being taken to prison for undergoing the remaining

part of the sentence. Therefore, this drastic power

cannot be exercised without following the principles of

natural justice. A show cause notice must be served

on the convict before taking action to withdraw/cancel

remission. The show cause notice must contain the

grounds on which action under sub section (3) of

Section 432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of Section

473 of BNNS is sought to be taken. The concerned

authority must give the convict an opportunity to file a

reply and of being heard. After that, the authority must

12

pass an order stating the reasons in brief. The convict

can always challenge the order of cancellation of

remission by adopting a remedy under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.; and

(vi) Registration of a cognizable offence against the

convict, per se, is not a ground to cancel the remission

order. The allegations of breach of condition cannot be

taken at their face value, and whether a case for

cancellation of remission is made out will have to be

decided in the facts of each case. Every case of

breach cannot invite cancellation of the order of

remission. The appropriate Government will have to

consider the nature of the breach alleged against the

convict. A minor or a trifling breach cannot be a

ground to cancel remission. There must be some

material to substantiate the allegations of breach.

Depending upon the seriousness and gravity thereof,

action can be taken under subsection (3) of Section

432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of Section 473 of

the BNSS of cancellation of the order remitting

sentence.”

14.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of

the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has

undergone about 17 years and 06 months of actual imprisonment and,

as per the information dated 19.03.2026 furnished under the Right to

Information Act, 2005, has earned 05 years, 10 months and 11 days of

remission, thereby completing more than 23 years of sentence including

earned remission. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's case for

grant of remission was considered by the competent authorities and the

learned 1

st

Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, vide communications

13

dated 01.11.2023 and 20.05.2025, expressed no objection to the

petitioner's release by grant of remission. Pursuant thereto, the Jail

Authorities forwarded the petitioner's case to the competent authority for

consideration. It is also significant that this Court, while deciding WPCR

No. 106/2025 on 21.03.2025, had already set aside the earlier order

dated 04.09.2024 and directed the State Government to reconsider the

petitioner's case afresh after obtaining a fresh opinion from the

concerned Sessions Judge.

15.Despite the aforesaid directions issued by this Court and the

favourable opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, respondent No. 2, by

the impugned order dated 15.01.2026, has once again rejected, in

substance, the petitioner's claim for remission solely on the ground that,

in view of Rule 358(6) of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, the case

of a prisoner convicted in a triple murder case could be placed before

the State Sentence Review Board only after completion of 20 years of

actual imprisonment. The impugned order neither considers the effect of

the earlier order passed by this Court nor assigns any reason for

disagreeing with the favourable opinions recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge on two occasions. The authority has thus failed to

undertake an independent and objective consideration of the petitioner's

case as required under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 473 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

16.The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.

Sriharan alias Murugan (supra), while approving the principles laid

14

down in Mohinder Singh (supra), has held that the exercise of power

under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. must be well-informed, reasonable and

fair. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further reiterated in Mafabhai

Motibhai Sagar (supra), that although a convict cannot claim remission

as a matter of right, he certainly possesses the right to have his case

considered in accordance with law and the applicable policy, and that

the power under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 473 of the

BNSS) must be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary

manner. In the present case, the petitioner has completed more than 23

years of sentence including earned remission; the learned Sessions

Judge has twice expressed no objection to his premature release; and

there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner is disentitled

to the benefit of remission on any legally sustainable ground. The

rejection of the petitioner's claim solely on the basis of Rule 358(6),

without objectively considering the relevant facts and the earlier

directions issued by this Court, is arbitrary and contrary to the principles

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions.

17.In view of the foregoing discussion and applying the principles laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Sriharan alias Murugan

(supra) and Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar (supra), this Court is of the

considered opinion that the impugned order dated 15.01.2026 cannot

be sustained in law and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ

petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.01.2026 is hereby

quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the

benefit of remission/premature release to the petitioner and release him

15

forthwith, if his custody is not required in connection with any other

case, subject to compliance with the usual terms and conditions

governing premature release under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules,

1968. No order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Brijmohan