1

2026:CGHC:27133-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPCR No. 609 of 2025

Neeraj Mali @ Golu S/o Late Shri Shankar Mali Aged About 46 Years

R/o Milan Chowk, Kududand, Bilaspur, Police Station - Civil Line

Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1.State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Home (Jail)

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

2.The Under Secretary Home (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 and Ms. Ananya

Chatterjee, Advocates.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional

Advocate General.

2

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

02.07.2026

1.Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner

along with Ms. Ananya Chatterjee, learned counsel. Also heard Mr.

Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for

the State/respondents.

2.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:

“10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call

for the entire records pertaining to this case from

possession of the respondents 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 letter/order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure

P/1) and the letter/order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure

P/3) issued by the respondent No. 2 and the mercy

petition filed by the petitioner under Article 161 of the

Constitution of India may kindly be allowed;

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding

respondent authorities to grant the petitioner pardon

under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and

release him from jail;

3

Or

The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a

suitable writ, order or direction commanding

respondent authorities to reconsider the mercy petition

filed by the petitioner for grant of pardon under Article

161 of the Constitution of India; and

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

deem fit and proper, may also be passed 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.). The

petitioner has remained in custody during different spells commencing

from 06.09.1999 and, after accounting for the periods when he was

released on bail, he has continuously undergone substantial

incarceration. As per the information supplied by the jail authorities, the

petitioner has remained in custody from 06.09.1999 to 01.05.2002, from

30.05.2002 to 29.03.2003, from 02.12.2015 to 12.07.2018, from

28.07.2018 to 17.01.2020, from 28.01.2020 to 04.08.2020, from

01.02.2021 to 20.05.2022, from 05.06.2022 to 25.10.2023, from

30.10.2023 to 10.02.2025, on 21.02.2025 and continuously since

27.02.2025.

4.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner was convicted by the learned 1

st

Additional Sessions

Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 91/2000 vide judgment dated

18.04.2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 148 of

the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo

4

imprisonment for life with fine. The appeal preferred by the petitioner,

namely Criminal Appeal No. 388/2001, came to be dismissed by this

Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 09.07.2015. Thereafter, the

petitioner preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1294/2016

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on

26.02.2016. The petitioner thereafter filed Review Petition (Criminal)

No. 608/2016, which also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court vide order dated 16.11.2016. Consequently, the

conviction and sentence attained finality.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after attaining

finality of the conviction, the petitioner invoked the power of clemency

by submitting an application under Rule 775 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons

Rules, 1968 on 07.01.2016 followed by a mercy petition dated

28.01.2016 seeking pardon and remission of the remaining sentence

under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that

the mercy petition was processed in accordance with law. The

Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, the Superintendent of Police,

Bilaspur and the District Magistrate, Bilaspur considered the case of the

petitioner and made favourable recommendations. Thereafter, the

Additional Director General, Jail and Correctional Services forwarded

the entire record to the Principal Secretary, Home (Jail) Department for

consideration under Article 161 of the Constitution.

6.It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that during the course of processing, certain communications were

5

exchanged between the authorities regarding the actual period of

imprisonment undergone by the petitioner and the applicability of

Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. Eventually, it was specifically clarified by

the jail authorities that the petitioner's case had not been forwarded

under Section 433-A Cr.P.C. for statutory remission but had been

forwarded for consideration of executive clemency under Article 161 of

the Constitution of India. Thereafter, a case summary was prepared and

placed before the Hon'ble Governor for consideration. He also

contended that the mercy petition ultimately came to be rejected on

24.03.2023. Subsequently, on 31.07.2023, the petitioner's wife

submitted an application requesting reconsideration of the petitioner's

mercy petition in view of the changed circumstances and the long

period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner. However, by

communication dated 09.07.2025, the authorities declined to consider

the request solely on the ground that Rule 775 of the Chhattisgarh

Prisons Rules, 1968 does not contain any provision permitting

reconsideration after rejection of a mercy petition.

7.It is further stated by the learned counsel, appearing for the

petitioner that the aforesaid approach is wholly erroneous and contrary

to the scheme of Rule 775 as well as the constitutional power contained

in Article 161 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that Rule 775

itself contemplates successive mercy petitions in appropriate cases. In

the case of prisoners sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of not

less than five years, a subsequent mercy petition is maintainable after

completion of half of the sentence. In the case of a life convict, Section

6

57 of the IPC provides that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as

equivalent to twenty years only for the limited purpose of calculating

fractions of punishment wherever required by law. By the time the

application dated 31.07.2023 was submitted, the petitioner had already

undergone more than ten years of imprisonment and, therefore, had

completed the equivalent of one-half of the period contemplated under

Section 57 IPC for such limited purpose. Consequently, the authorities

were required to consider the petitioner's request on merits instead of

rejecting it as not maintainable.

8.Learned counsel further submits that the rejection of the mercy

petition also suffers from a fundamental legal error inasmuch as it

appears to have proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had not

completed fourteen years of actual imprisonment. Such reasoning is

legally unsustainable because the constitutional power of the Governor

under Article 161 is an independent constitutional power which is

distinct from statutory remission under Section 433-A Cr.P.C.

Completion of fourteen years of actual imprisonment is not an absolute

pre-condition for exercise of constitutional clemency under Article 161.

The authorities, therefore, misdirected themselves in law by importing

considerations applicable to statutory remission into the exercise of

constitutional power. He also submits that several similarly situated

prisoners have been granted premature release in exercise of powers

under Article 161 of the Constitution without completion of fourteen

years of actual imprisonment. One such instance is that of Vishnu S/o

Chaitu Ram, whose case demonstrates that the constitutional power

7

has in fact been exercised in deserving cases even before completion

of fourteen years of incarceration. The petitioner, therefore, has been

denied equal and fair consideration despite his case being supported by

favourable recommendations of the competent authorities. He further

stated that the petitioner has maintained satisfactory conduct during

incarceration. The Superintendent of Jail, the Superintendent of Police

and the District Magistrate have all recommended his case for grant of

pardon. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents apart from the

present case. At the time of the incident, he was about twenty-one years

of age. During the pendency of his criminal appeal before this Hon'ble

Court, he remained on bail and never misused the liberty granted to

him.

9.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

petitioner is also facing compelling humanitarian circumstances. His

father expired during the period of his incarceration. His sister has also

passed away leaving behind minor children, whose responsibility has

fallen upon the petitioner's family. The petitioner's wife is single-

handedly maintaining the family, including the petitioner's aged mother,

three children and the children of his deceased sister, resulting in

severe financial and social hardship. These relevant humanitarian

considerations have not received due consideration while deciding the

petitioner's request for executive clemency. He also places reliance

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana

& Others v. Rajkumar @ Bittu, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 292 to

contend that the exercise of power relating to remission and premature

8

release must be fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary and in accordance with

the governing policy and constitutional principles.

10.Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Epuru Sudhakar & Another v. Government of Andhra

Pradesh, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 161 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that although the powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the

Constitution are of the widest amplitude, they are not immune from

judicial review. The Court held that an order granting or refusing

clemency can be judicially reviewed where it is passed without

application of mind, is arbitrary, mala fide, based on wholly irrelevant

considerations, ignores relevant materials, or suffers from manifest

unreasonableness. It is submitted that in the present case, the

respondents have refused to consider the petitioner's request by

adopting an erroneous interpretation of Rule 775 and by treating

completion of fourteen years of imprisonment as a mandatory condition

even while considering constitutional clemency under Article 161. The

impugned decision, therefore, stands vitiated on account of non-

application of mind, consideration of irrelevant factors and failure to

consider relevant constitutional parameters, thereby warranting

interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

11.Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present writ

petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit and liable to be

dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner seeks judicial interference

with an executive decision taken in exercise of the constitutional power

9

under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, despite there being no

illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting interference by

this Court. The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 148 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 18.04.2001 passed by the

learned 1

st

Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial

No.91/2000. The conviction has attained finality upon dismissal of

Criminal Appeal No. 388/2001 by this Court, followed by dismissal of

Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1294/2016 and Review Petition

(Criminal) No. 608/2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

12.Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner preferred

a mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which was

duly processed and rejected by the competent authority. The said

decision was communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated

24.03.2023 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, the petitioner's wife submitted

an application seeking reconsideration of the said decision. Since Rule

775 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 does not provide for review

or reconsideration of a rejected mercy petition, the respondents rightly

declined the said request. It is submitted that the Rule contemplates

only a fresh mercy petition, if otherwise maintainable, and not a review

of an earlier decision. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by

the petitioner on Section 57 of the IPC is misconceived, as the said

provision neither converts a sentence of life imprisonment into one of

twenty years nor creates any right to seek reconsideration after

completion of ten years of imprisonment.

10

13.Learned State counsel further contended that the scope of judicial

review over an order passed under Article 161 of the Constitution is

extremely limited. The petitioner has failed to establish any mala fides,

arbitrariness, non-application of mind or consideration of irrelevant

material so as to warrant interference by this Court. It is submitted that a

convict has no vested right to claim pardon or remission and this Court

cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the constitutional authority.

14.It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that, pursuant

to the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by this Court, the respondents

have placed on record the relevant note-sheet as Annexure A/1,

pertaining to the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by His Excellency the

Governor and referred to in Annexure P/3. It is submitted that the note-

sheet clearly reflects due application of mind. Although the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, the Superintendent of Police and

the District Magistrate had recommended the petitioner's premature

release, the competent authority found that the petitioner had

undergone only 9 years, 2 months and 25 days of actual imprisonment,

whereas Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. mandates completion of 14 years

of actual imprisonment in the case of a life convict convicted of an

offence punishable with death as one of the prescribed punishments.

The note-sheet further records that the offence was intentional in nature

and that the personal and financial hardships projected by the petitioner

were not sufficient grounds for remission. Accordingly, the competent

authority found the petitioner not entitled to premature release, while

observing that the final decision under Article 161 vested with His

11

Excellency the Governor. The proposal also bears the approval of the

Principal Secretary, Law Department.

15.It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned communication has

been issued strictly in accordance with law and does not suffer from any

jurisdictional error, illegality or procedural impropriety warranting

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly,

the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

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

perused the pleadings and the material available on record.

17.The controversy involved in the present writ petition lies in a

narrow compass. The petitioner has challenged the communication

dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondents declined to

entertain the application seeking reconsideration of the rejection of the

mercy petition, as also the communication dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure

P/3) whereby the decision rejecting the petitioner's mercy petition

preferred under Article 161 of the Constitution of India was

communicated. The petitioner has further sought a direction for grant of

pardon under Article 161 or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of his

mercy petition.

18.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was convicted for the

offences punishable under Sections 302 and 148 of the IPC in Sessions

Trial No. 91/2000 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The

conviction attained finality after dismissal of Criminal Appeal

No.388/2001 by this Court, followed by dismissal of Special Leave to

12

Appeal (Criminal) No. 1294/2016 and Review Petition (Criminal)

No.608/2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

19.It is also not in dispute that the petitioner preferred a mercy

petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which was duly

processed by the competent authorities and ultimately rejected. The

said decision was communicated vide letter dated 24.03.2023

(Annexure P/3). Thereafter, the petitioner's wife submitted an

application seeking reconsideration of the said decision, which came to

be declined by the impugned communication dated 09.07.2025

(Annexure P/1).

20.The principal contention of the petitioner is that the application

dated 31.07.2023 ought to have been treated as a fresh mercy petition

in terms of Rule 775 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 and

considered on merits. We are unable to accept the said submission. A

plain reading of the application submitted by the petitioner's wife leaves

no manner of doubt that what was sought was reconsideration of the

earlier rejection of the mercy petition and not an independent or fresh

mercy petition. Rule 775 does not confer any power upon the authorities

to review or reconsider an order whereby a mercy petition has already

been decided. In the absence of any enabling provision, the

respondents cannot be faulted for declining to entertain such request.

21.Equally devoid of merit is the reliance placed by the petitioner on

Section 57 of the IPC. The said provision creates a legal fiction only for

the limited purpose of calculating fractions of punishment wherever

13

such calculation is required by law. It neither converts a sentence of

imprisonment for life into one of twenty years nor creates any

enforceable right in favour of a life convict to seek reconsideration of a

rejected mercy petition after completion of ten years of imprisonment.

22.The submission that the mercy petition was rejected solely on the

ground that the petitioner had not completed fourteen years of actual

imprisonment also does not merit acceptance. Pursuant to the order

dated 07.04.2026 passed by this Court, the respondents have placed

on record the relevant note-sheet as Annexure A/1, which reflects the

decision-making process. The note-sheet reveals that although

favourable recommendations had been made by the Superintendent,

Central Jail, Bilaspur, the Superintendent of Police and the District

Magistrate, Bilaspur, the competent authority also considered the nature

and gravity of the offence, the actual period of imprisonment undergone

by the petitioner, the applicability of Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. and the

grounds urged by the petitioner in support of premature release. It was

further noticed that no mitigating circumstance was found to justify

exercise of the extraordinary constitutional power under Article 161. The

decision, therefore, cannot be said to be based solely on the petitioner's

non-completion of fourteen years of actual imprisonment.

23.The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Epuru Sudhakar (supra) is also misplaced.

In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the

exercise of powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution is

14

amenable to judicial review, the scope of such review is limited to

examining whether the decision is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness,

non-application of mind, consideration of wholly irrelevant materials or

exclusion of relevant considerations. In the present case, from the

material placed on record, particularly Annexure A/1, it is evident that

the competent authority considered all relevant aspects before arriving

at its decision. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the

decision-making process suffers from any of the infirmities recognised in

the aforesaid judgment. Consequently, no case for interference in

exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out.

24.The reliance placed by the petitioner on Rajkumar @ Bittu

(supra) is equally misconceived. The said decision was rendered in the

context of remission and premature release under the applicable

statutory policy. The present case, however, concerns rejection of a

mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution and the

maintainability of an application seeking reconsideration thereof. The

issues involved being materially different, the said decision has no

application to the facts of the present case.

25.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that neither the communication dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure

P/3) communicating rejection of the petitioner's mercy petition nor the

communication dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) declining to entertain

the request for reconsideration suffers from any illegality, arbitrariness,

mala fides or procedural impropriety warranting interference by this

15

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. The relief sought by the petitioner for grant of pardon under

Article 161 also cannot be granted by this Court, as the power of

clemency is vested exclusively in the constitutional authority and this

Court, in exercise of judicial review, cannot substitute its own decision

for that of the competent authority.

26.Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

However, it is observed that dismissal of the present petition shall not

preclude the petitioner from availing such remedy as may be available

to him in law, including submission of a fresh mercy petition under

Article 161 of the Constitution of India or seeking remission/premature

release, if otherwise permissible. In the event any such mercy petition

or application for remission/premature release is preferred by the

petitioner, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same

on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by

any observations made in the present petition.

27.No order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Brijmohan