Chattisgarh High Court
Jageshwar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:7771-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
by SAGRIKA
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.02.13
18:50:26 +0530
WPCR No. 90 of 2026
1 - Jageshwar Sahu S/o Chintaram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Newari,
Police Station- Suhela, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), Presently Lodged In
Raipur Central Jail, Durg (C.G.), Since In Jail Through His Son Raj Sahu, S/o
Jageshwar Sahu, Presently Aged About 22 Years, R/o- Village- Newari, Police
Station- Suhela, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Additional Secretary, Home (Jail) Department,
Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Services) Jail Department, Jail
Headquarters, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Jail Superintendent, Raipur Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/02/2026
1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-
"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities and direct the Respondent State to prematurely release the petitioner, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.
10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice. "
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, presently lodged in Central Jail, Raipur, is undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to judgment dated 04.11.2011 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur in Sessions Case No. 47/2008 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 427, 435/149, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC. The petitioner has completed more than 22 years of imprisonment (including remission), with over 17 years of actual custody, and has maintained satisfactory 3 conduct in jail, having been released on parole 13 times without any adverse report. Upon becoming eligible for premature release under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, and after the Presiding Judge expressed no objection, the petitioner's application was nevertheless rejected by the State vide order dated 15.12.2025. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has completed more than 22 years of imprisonment (including remission), with over 17 years of actual custody, and has maintained satisfactory conduct in jail, having been released on parole 13 times without any adverse report. Upon becoming eligible for premature release under the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, and after the Presiding Judge expressed no objection, the petitioner's application was nevertheless rejected by the State vide order dated 15.12.2025 solely on the ground of gravity of offence, without assigning cogent reasons or duly considering relevant factors as mandated under Rule 358. It is further contended that similarly co-accused Tijauram Sahu has already been granted the benefit of remission by the order dated 15.12.2025 and copy of the order dated 15.12.2025 has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P/9, and that the impugned rejection order reflects non-application of mind, arbitrary exercise of power under Section 432 Cr.P.C./Section 473 BNSS, and therefore warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court.
5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and 4 after due consideration by the State Sentence Review Board. The petitioner stands convicted for grave and serious offences including Section 302 IPC and allied offences committed in furtherance of unlawful assembly, and the nature and manner of commission of the crime are relevant and permissible considerations while examining a case for premature release. The power under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier Section 432 Cr.P.C.) is discretionary in nature and does not confer any vested or fundamental right upon a convict to claim remission or premature release as a matter of entitlement. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 and after due consideration by the State Sentence Review Board. The petitioner stands convicted for grave and serious offences including Section 302 IPC and allied offences committed in furtherance of unlawful assembly, and the nature and manner of commission of the crime are relevant and permissible considerations while examining a case for premature release. The power under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier Section 432 Cr.P.C.) is discretionary in nature and does not confer any vested or fundamental right upon a convict to claim remission or premature release as a matter of entitlement.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the documents, annexures, and records placed on file along with the writ petition.
7. From perusal of the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 and the material available on record, it prima facie appears that the rejection of the 5 petitioner's application for premature release is unsustainable in law for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968. The Rule obligates the State Sentence Review Board to examine the case on the parameters prescribed under sub-Rule (4), including the opinion of the sentencing Court, report of the Collector and Superintendent of Police, and the jail conduct report, and further mandates under sub-Rule (7)(vii) that in case of rejection, the State Government must assign reasonable and logical reasons. However, the impugned order merely refers to the gravity of the offence and a generalized apprehension of adverse societal impact, without reflecting due consideration of the petitioner's long incarceration of more than 22 years (including remission), his satisfactory jail conduct, multiple parole releases without any adverse report, and the opinion of the Presiding Judge expressing no objection to remission.
8. Further, a significant aspect requiring consideration is that the co-
accused Tijauram Sahu, who was convicted in the same crime, whose appeal and SLP were also dismissed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been granted remission vide order dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P/9). The principle of parity demands that similarly situated convicts arising out of the same occurrence and conviction be treated alike, unless distinguishing features are recorded with cogent reasons. The impugned order does not disclose any distinguishing circumstance justifying differential treatment between the petitioner and the said co- accused.
9. The power under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier Section 432 Cr.P.C.), though discretionary, is required 6 to be exercised upon objective consideration of relevant materials and supported by recorded subjective satisfaction. Failure to consider relevant factors and parity with the co-accused renders the decision arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the impugned order warrants interference.
10. Consequently, in view of the above stated fact that the co-accused Tijauram Sahu has already been granted remission vide order dated 15.12.2025, the present writ petition is allowed in similar terms and the respondent State is directed to prematurely release the petitioner.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika