#Section 432 CrPC

The Supreme Court held that Abu Salem had not served the 25-year limit guaranteed by India’s sovereign assurance to Portugal, barred double-counting of overlapping pre- and post-conviction custody, and clarified that remission earned in jail cannot be added to a life sentence. The ruling affects extradition-based sentences and clarifies how custodial periods and remission are computed for life imprisonment.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a convict's eligibility for premature release must be assessed under the prison policy in force at the time of conviction, not later amendments or unrelated jail misconduct. The court set aside the rejection order, emphasizing that post-conviction policy changes or disciplinary infractions cannot override the original eligibility criteria, ensuring fairness under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Chhattisgarh High Court sets aside remission denial for a life convict after 20 years, ruling that speculative fears of reoffending cannot trump statutory reformative principles under Section 432 CrPC and Chhattisgarh Jail Rules. The judgment reinforces that prolonged incarceration and demonstrated reformation must guide remission decisions, not hypothetical risks.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that prolonged imprisonment with demonstrated reformation creates a legal entitlement to remission under Section 432 CrPC, setting aside administrative discretion that ignored judicial precedents and positive conduct reports. The judgment reinforces that speculative fears of reoffending cannot override statutory remission rights for life convicts.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that executive guidelines barring remission based on crime type violate Article 14 and undermine reformative justice under CrPC and prison rules.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that negative remission opinions under Section 473 BNSS must be reasoned and consider Laxman Naskar factors; mechanical denial violates statutory rights.