The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that the power to grant premature release under prison rules is not an unfettered discretion, but must be exercised with strict adherence to procedural mandates and the constitutional guarantee of equality. A blanket rejection based solely on the gravity of the offence, without evaluating statutory criteria or addressing parity with co-accused, renders the decision arbitrary and unsustainable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Netram Sahu, was convicted under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2011. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court and later by the Supreme Court. As of August 2025, he had served over 22 years of imprisonment, including remissions, and more than 17 years of actual incarceration. He had been granted parole 13 times without any adverse report, and the sentencing judge had explicitly stated no objection to his remission.
Procedural History
- 2011: Conviction and life sentence confirmed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur
- 2012: Conviction affirmed by Chhattisgarh High Court in CRA No. 42 of 2012
- 2015: Supreme Court dismissed SLP (Crl.) No. 562 of 2015
- 2025: First remission application rejected under old Rule 358; challenged in WPCR No. 430 of 2025
- 2025: High Court granted liberty to file fresh application under amended Rule 358
- 2025: Fresh application submitted; forwarded to State Sentence Review Board
- 2026: Impugned order dated 05.01.2026 rejected application citing only "gravity of offence"
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and direction for his premature release, arguing compliance with Rule 358, absence of adverse conduct, and parity with co-accused Tijauram Sahu, who was released on 15.12.2025.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State Sentence Review Board can reject an application for premature release under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 without considering the mandatory parameters listed in sub-rule (4) and without assigning reasonable and logical reasons as required under sub-rule (7)(vii), particularly when a co-accused in the same case has been granted similar relief.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the impugned order violated Rule 358(4) and Rule 358(7)(vii) by failing to consider: (i) the opinion of the sentencing court, (ii) reports of the Collector and Superintendent of Police, (iii) jail conduct, and (iv) the petitioner’s 22-year incarceration record. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and Kunwar Singh v. State of U.P. to assert that non-speaking orders are arbitrary. The denial of parity with Tijauram Sahu, convicted in the same crime and under identical circumstances, was argued to violate Article 14.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the power under Section 473 of the BNSS (formerly Section 432 Cr.P.C.) is discretionary and not a fundamental right. It argued that the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC is a legitimate consideration and that the Board had exercised its discretion after due deliberation. No specific rebuttal was offered regarding the omission of statutorily mandated factors or the disparity with the co-accused.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the amended Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, which mandates a structured inquiry into eleven specified parameters before any decision on premature release. Sub-rule (7)(vii) explicitly requires that any rejection must contain "reasonable and logical reasons". The impugned order, however, contained no reference to any of the statutorily mandated factors - neither the opinion of the Presiding Judge, nor the jail conduct report, nor the Collector’s or SP’s views.
"The impugned order, however, 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..."
The Court emphasized that while discretion exists, it must be exercised on objective material and with recorded subjective satisfaction. The failure to consider relevant factors and the absence of reasoning rendered the order arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court further held that the principle of parity is not optional but a constitutional imperative. The fact that Tijauram Sahu, convicted in the same case, with identical appeal history and no distinguishing circumstances, had been granted remission, made the differential treatment inexplicable and unlawful.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that denial of premature release without considering mandatory statutory factors and without addressing parity with co-accused is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The impugned order was set aside, and the State was directed to immediately process the petitioner’s premature release.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Speaking Orders Are Invalid
- Practitioners must challenge any rejection of remission that lacks reference to Rule 358(4) factors
- A one-line order citing "gravity of offence" alone is legally insufficient
- File writ petitions under Article 226 where reasons are absent or mechanical
Parity Is a Constitutional Imperative
- Where co-accused in the same crime receive remission, differential treatment requires documented, rational justification
- Absence of such justification invites judicial intervention under Article 14
- Maintain comparative records of co-accused outcomes in all life sentence remission applications
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Prison authorities must record compliance with each of the eleven parameters under Rule 358(4)
- Failure to obtain Collector/SP reports or court opinions renders the entire process defective
- Petitioners should seek these documents under RTI to build a record for litigation
