Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar Janardan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

          "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records from respondent no. 1 for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court.

          10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash /set-aside impugned memo dated 22.03.2026 passed by respondent no. 1, in the interest of justice.

          10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ order or directions to respondents for granting the remission of the conviction period under the provisions of section 432 (2) of Cr. P. C. as per similar order Annexure P-2, in the interest of justice.

          10.4 Any other relief may also be granted in favour of the petitioner as may deem fit by the Hon'ble Court as per facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently in custody in Central Jail, Raipur since 09.06.2011 in connection with offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 25(1-B)(11) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 pursuant to judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 190/2011, and is undergoing the sentence imposed therein. The petitioner has remained in continuous custody since the date of arrest and has completed more than 18 years of incarceration as on 18.06.2025, during which period his conduct in jail has remained satisfactory and no adverse remarks have been reported by the jail authorities. Thereafter, in the course of remission proceedings, the learned Sessions Court issued memo dated 05.07.2025 to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur in relation to consideration under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), however, despite completion of the requisite qualifying sentence and favourable conduct, the petitioner's case for remission was not considered in accordance with the statutory mandate. The petitioner submitted an application seeking remission before the competent authority, but the same has been rejected/decided in an arbitrary manner without due application of mind and in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. and Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Rules, 1968. The said action is further contrary to the binding directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 78/2017 (Amarnath Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh), wherein it has been held that consideration of remission matters must not be mechanical and must be decided in a fair, reasoned and time-bound manner, and further the authorities have failed to adhere to the procedure established by law. Similarly situated convicts have already been extended the benefit of remission vide orders dated 07.12.2020 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 463/2018, order dated 21.07.2022 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 755/2021, order dated 06.09.2022 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 847/2021, and order dated 22.08.2022 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 163/2022. Despite the petitioner being similarly placed and otherwise eligible for consideration, the respondents have failed to extend the benefit of remission and have dealt with the matter in a non-speaking and arbitrary manner, thereby rendering the impugned action illegal, unjustified and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions for reconsideration and grant of remission in accordance with law.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner stands convicted for offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 25(1-B)(11) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 pursuant to judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 190/2011, which has attained finality. It is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Raipur since 09.06.2011 and has sought benefit of remission after completion of about 18 years of incarceration as on 18.06.2025. It is further submitted that the competent authority has duly considered the case of the petitioner in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and has passed the impugned order dated 17.03.2026, which does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. Learned State counsel submits that the consideration of remission is strictly governed by the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Rules, 1968 and Section 432 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), and the same is subject to fulfillment of prescribed eligibility conditions, including compliance with Rule 31-Ka(3), as the mandatory period from the date of previous leave has not elapsed. It is contended that remission is not a matter of right but a discretionary relief to be exercised in accordance with law, and since the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite statutory criteria, no interference is warranted by this Court and the present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stands convicted pursuant to judgment dated 25.09.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 190/2011 for offences under Sections 302/34 and 449 IPC as well as Sections 25(1- B)(11) and 27 of the Arms Act and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Raipur. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in custody since 09.06.2011 and has completed more than 18 years of incarceration as on 18.06.2025. The material placed on record further indicates that the jail authorities have reported satisfactory conduct of the petitioner and no adverse jail conduct has been brought to the notice of this Court.

7. It is further evident from the record that remission proceedings were initiated and the learned Sessions Court, Raipur furnished its opinion in terms of Section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite completion of the requisite period of sentence and fulfillment of the eligibility conditions, his case has not been considered in its proper perspective and the competent authority has failed to take an informed decision in accordance with the statutory scheme governing remission.

8. The Court has carefully perused the material available on record. The impugned action/order indicates that while dealing with the petitioner's claim, the authorities have not adequately considered the relevant factors governing grant of remission, including the period of incarceration already undergone, jail conduct, possibility of reformation and the object underlying the remission policy. The decision-making process, therefore, requires scrutiny on the touchstone of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.

9. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the power of remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a statutory power required to be exercised in accordance with established principles and the applicable remission policy. Though remission cannot be claimed as an absolute right, every eligible convict possesses a right to fair, objective and non-arbitrary consideration of his case by the competent authority.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626, Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, and State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 has consistently held that while exercising powers relating to remission or premature release, the authorities are required to consider relevant factors, apply the applicable policy uniformly and avoid arbitrary or irrelevant considerations. Equally relevant are the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 78/2017 (Amarnath Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh), emphasizing that opinions under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. must not be rendered mechanically and that remission matters are required to be dealt with in a fair and reasoned manner.

11. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone more than 18 years of incarceration and there is nothing on record to indicate any adverse conduct during his imprisonment. The record further reveals that the petitioner's case was required to be examined in the light of the applicable remission policy and the statutory framework. However, the relevant considerations governing remission do not appear to have been fully addressed while dealing with the petitioner's claim.

12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned action cannot be sustained in its present form. The competent authority is required to undertake a fresh consideration of the petitioner's case by taking into account all relevant factors including the period of incarceration undergone, jail conduct, applicable remission policy, recommendations of the authorities concerned and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, if now required in any other case, subject to compliance with usual terms and conditions a may be imposed under the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968. No order as to costs.