Dismissed¶53

Alakh Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jan 2026WPCR/650/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPCR No. 650 of 2025; decided 02.01.2026; remission of sentence; Section 432 CrPC; Section 473(1) BNSS 2023; Rule 358(3)(g)(2) Jail Manual; life imprisonment Sections 302/149 IPC; triple murder; family land dispute; advisory recommendations of trial Court and Jail Authorities; Article 226 judicial review; concurrent sentences; 20 years incarceration; Somesh @ Sonu Thakur W.P.(Cr.) No. 339/2023; Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh; Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India; Ramesh Sinha CJ; Arvind Kumar Verma J; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶53

Alakh Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the petitioner's remission application is against settled principles of law and liable to be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. +3 more

¶21

Court's answer

Remission of sentence is not a matter of right, but rests within the domain of the executive, to be exercised in accordance with statutory provisions, applicable rules and settled legal principles.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The power of judicial review in remission matters is limited to examining whether the decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness, perversity, mala fides or non-application of mind; the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the competent authority under Article 226.

¶44

Key takeaways

The reliance on sub-rule (3)(g)(2) of Rule 358 of the Jail Manual, which disentitles prisoners convicted for offences under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC from consideration for remission at the present stage, cannot be said to be arbitrary or dehors the statutory framework.ratio¶47
Favourable recommendations of the learned trial Court and the Jail Authorities are advisory in nature and do not bind the State Government; the final decision rests with the competent authority, which must balance individual considerations with societal interest.ratio¶48
Considering that the petitioner has been convicted of triple murder, the competent authority was justified in adopting a cautious and restrictive approach while considering the prayer for remission.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (DB: Ramesh Sinha, CJ, author; Arvind Kumar Verma, J.), WPCR No. 650 of 2025, decided 02.01.2026 — A convict (Alakh Ram), serving life imprisonment on three counts under S.302/149 IPC with further sentences under Ss.148, 460, 323/149 and 342 IPC (Sessions Trial No. 38/2009, judgment dated 17.10.2011, Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband; appellate appeal dismissed 08.11.2017), who had undergone about 20 years' incarceration and held favourable recommendations of the learned trial Judge (memo dated 15.04.2024) and the Jail Authorities, challenged the State's order dated 05.05.2025 rejecting his remission application under S.473(1) BNSS 2023 (corresponding to S.432(1) CrPC). Held: remission is not a matter of right but lies within the executive domain; judicial review under Article 226 is confined to the decision-making process (arbitrariness, perversity, mala fides, non-application of mind); recommendations of the trial Court and Jail Authorities are advisory and non-binding; reliance on Rule 358(3)(g)(2) of the Jail Manual, disentitling S.302 read with S.149 IPC lifers from remission consideration, is neither arbitrary nor dehors the statutory framework; concurrent sentences and long incarceration confer no indefeasible right to remission in multiple-murder cases; the impugned order was reasoned and lawful. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.01.02 16:53:35 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:19-DB NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPCR No. 650 of 2025

¶6

Alakh Ram S/o Shri Tirith Ram @ Tirath Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sonesilli, Navapara Raipur, C.G. Presently R/o Laxmi Nagar, Sankara, P.S. Magarlod, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Secretary Department of Law, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Superintendent of Jail Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - The Director General of Police Prison And Correctional Services, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

02.01.2026

¶18

1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra,, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents.

¶19

¶20

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 as the same is against the settled principles of Law.

¶22

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the application of the petitioner under section 432 of Cr.P.C. by releasing the petitioner after remission as he completed about 20 years of jail sentence as the sentences were directed to be run concurrently, to meet the ends of justice.

¶23

10.3 That, or in alternate the matter may be remitted back to the respondent authorities for fresh consideration in light of judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Somesh @ Sonu Thakur, in the interest of justice.

¶24

10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.”

¶25

3. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the

¶26

¶27

application preferred under Section 473(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) has been rejected, and consequently, the prayer for remission of sentence made by the petitioner has been disallowed, despite positive recommendations in his favour by the learned trial Judge as well as the Jail Authorities. It is further averred that the petitioner has almost completed 20 years of actual incarceration.

¶28

4. Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner along with 15 other co-accused was tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 460, 323/149 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 38/2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Raipur, the petitioner and other co-accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment (thrice) under Section 302/149 IPC, 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 460 IPC, along with sentences under Sections 148, 323/149 and 342 IPC. It is submitted that all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶29

5. Mr. Dembra further submits that the petitioner along with seven other co-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 315/2012 before this Court, while the remaining eight co-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 835/2011. This Court vide judgment dated 08.11.2017 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and

¶30

¶31

similarly situated co-accused; however, the appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 835/2011 preferred by the other co-accused was allowed. It is next submitted that the petitioner preferred an application seeking remission of sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned trial Court, upon due consideration, furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the petitioner vide memo dated 15.04.2024. The Jail Authorities have also submitted the petitioner’s conduct and relevant details in the prescribed format. Despite the aforesaid positive recommendations by the trial Court and Jail Authorities, the respondent No.1 arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s application for remission vide impugned order dated 05.05.2025.

¶32

6. It is contended by Mr. Dembra that the rejection of the petitioner’s application is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India , as well as by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 339/2023 (Somesh @ Sonu Thakur vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) decided on 16.08.2023. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the law relating to consideration of an application under Section 432 Cr.P.C. is well settled, which mandates that such application must be considered on its own merits, after taking into account the entire factual matrix of the case.

¶33

¶34

7. Mr. Dembra submits that the impugned order is bereft of adequate reasons, rendering it arbitrary, and hence the matter deserves to be remitted back for fresh consideration and for passing a reasoned order. It is also contended that the petitioner is a poor person and has already undergone almost 20 years of incarceration, and therefore, the benefit of remission ought to have been granted by the State authorities. Since the learned trial Court had directed that all sentences shall run concurrently, the continued incarceration of the petitioner beyond 20 years is illegal and unjustified. Lastly, learned counsel submits that considering the long period of incarceration, advanced age of the petitioner, and humanitarian grounds, the petitioner deserves to be released by granting him the benefit of remission of sentence.

¶35

8. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, supports the impugned order and submits that the competent authority has passed the same after due consideration of the relevant facts and record. He contends that no case for grant of remission is made out and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition, while opposing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the impugned order along with the pleadings and the material available on record.

¶37

¶38

10. From perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P/1), it transpires that the petitioner–convict Alakhram was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 (three counts), 460, 323/149 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 17.10.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 38/2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariaband (Chhattisgarh), and that he is presently undergoing the said sentence in Central Jail, Raipur.

¶39

11. It further emerges from the impugned order that upon consideration of the proposal received from the Jail Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, it was noted that the petitioner, along with other coconvicts, had caused the death of three persons in furtherance of a common object arising out of a family land dispute. The Law Department, after tendering its opinion, opined that in view of subrule (3)(g)(2) of Rule 358 of the Jail Manual, prisoners undergoing life imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 149 IPC are not entitled to consideration for remission. On the said premise, it was concluded that the petitioner is not eligible for remission at the present stage.

¶40

12. On the aforesaid basis and by invoking powers under Section 473(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and while referring to the opinions of the Presiding Judge, Jail Superintendent, Director General of Prisons and the Law Department, as well as the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶41

¶42

Court and this Court, the State Government declined to remit the remaining part of the petitioner’s sentence.

¶43

13. Upon thoughtful consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on an anxious scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition warranting interference. It is undisputed that the petitioner stands convicted for the heinous offence of murder of three persons, committed in furtherance of a common object, arising out of a family land dispute, and has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment on three counts under Section 302/149 of the IPC, in addition to other sentences. The nature and gravity of the offence, therefore, undoubtedly fall within the category of serious and grave crimes having a deep impact on societal order.

¶44

14. It is well settled that remission of sentence is not a matter of right, but rests within the domain of the executive, to be exercised in accordance with statutory provisions, applicable rules and settled legal principles. The power of judicial review in such matters is limited to examining whether the decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness, perversity, mala fides or non-application of mind. The Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the competent authority while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

15. In the present case, the impugned order clearly reflects that the

¶46

¶47

competent authority has taken into consideration the relevant factors, including the nature of offence, the manner of commission of crime, the opinion of the Law Department, and the applicable provisions of the Jail Manual. The reliance placed on sub-rule (3) (g)(2) of Rule 358 of the Jail Manual, which disentitles prisoners convicted for offences under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC from consideration for remission at the present stage, cannot be said to be arbitrary or dehors the statutory framework.

¶48

16. Though the learned trial Court and the Jail Authorities have furnished favourable recommendations, such opinions are advisory in nature and do not bind the State Government. The final decision rests with the competent authority, which is required to balance individual considerations with societal interest. Considering that the petitioner has been convicted of triple murder, this Court is of the opinion that the authority was justified in adopting a cautious and restrictive approach while considering the prayer for remission.

¶49

17. The mere fact that the sentences were directed to run concurrently or that the petitioner has undergone incarceration of about 20 years does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to remission, particularly in cases involving multiple murders. Humanitarian considerations, though relevant, cannot eclipse the seriousness of the crime and the need to uphold public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.

¶50

¶51

18. This Court also finds that the impugned order cannot be said to be unreasoned or mechanical. The competent authority has applied its mind to the relevant materials, opinions and legal provisions before arriving at the decision. In such circumstances, interference by this Court would amount to substituting its own opinion for that of the executive authority, which is impermissible in law.

¶52

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶53

20. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶54

Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶55

Anu

Alakh Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alakh Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Parwati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neelesh Bhargav @ Chhota Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Soni Ajay Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K.K. Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Swati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh