Chattisgarh High Court
Anand Dheemar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
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)
Digitally
signed by
For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.07.15
Advocate.
17:59:17
+0530
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
310.4 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 1st 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 1st 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)
7When 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
8of 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
9has 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 1st respondent, the State of Gujarat, has
10a policy that forms part of the Government Resolution
dated 23rd 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
11to 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
12pass 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 1st 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
