Chattisgarh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Choubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
2025:CGHC:37209-DB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.07.31
18:42:20
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 427 of 2025
1 - Rajendra Kumar Choubey S/o Late Shri Makhan Prasad Choubey
Aged About 79 Years R/o Ward No. 4 Shitla Para, Simga, Distt.
Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Jail,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur C.G.
2 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, Distt Durg C.G.
3 - State Central Review Board Through Its Chairman, Raipur C.G.
4 - Director General Of Police (Prison And Correctional Services)
Sector 19 Nava Raipur C.G.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
2
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
30.07.2025
1. The present WPCR has been filed with the following prayer:-
10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for
entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner’s Son for
its kind perusal.
10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondent State to place the case of the petitioner’s son
before the State Sentence Review Board for his release.
10.3. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to consider the award of
appropriate compensation on account of unnecessary
detention of the petitioner’s son.
10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper, including cost of the petition.
2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition are that the
petitioner, who is the father of Raju alias Devendra Choubey
preferred the present writ petition stating that his son has
been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 and 120 B of
IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge Bemetara by judgment
dated 29.01.2005 in S.T. No. 44/04. Against the said judgment
3
he preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Division
Bench of this Court in CRA No. 244/05 by judgment dated
17.09.2010. Their against the son of the petitioner preferred
CRA No. 822/12 before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court
also dismissed the same by judgment dated 21.08.2014.
According to the petitioner the son of the petitioner completed
more than 20 years of Jail sentence and the other co-accused
who have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment have
already been released from the Central Jail Durg, but the said
benefit has not been extended in favour of the son of the
petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner is running from pillar to
post for release of his son and even he approached Hon’ble
the Governor of Chhattisgarh by filing mercy petition under
Article 161 of the Constitution of India which has been
declined by order dated 03.11.2021, by the Hon’ble Governor
of Chhattisgarh. Thus, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has preferred mercy petition under Section 161 of the
constitution of India and the same was rejected by Hon’ble the
Governor of Chhattisgarh on 03.11.2021. It is stated that the
petitioner’s application for grant of remission, in respect of his
4
son, is pending before the District Magistrate. The said prayer
for grant of remission was forwarded by the Jail
Superintendent to the concerned authority on 30.06.2025 and
on 15.07.2025, it is stated that the District Magistrate has
called for the opinion of the Superintendent of Police.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State
would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the documents.
6. On perusal of the pleadings and documents appended to the
petition as also the documents placed before the Court during
the course of hearing, it is evident that subsequently the
petitioner moved a representation before the Jail
Superintendent Durg for release of his son. The Jail
Superintendent Durg by letter dated 30.06.2025 forwarded the
matter to the District Magistrate Bemetara. Thereafter the
District Magistrate Bemetara by memo dated 15.07.2025
requested the Senior Superintendent of Police to submit his
opinion within a period of 7 days.
5
7. On bare perusal of the record, it is evident that by the Rules
namely Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules 1968, there is a provision
for premature release of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment
for life under Rule 358. which reads as under:-
“358.Premature release of prisoners sentenced to
imprisonment for life.-
(1) Constitution of State Sentence Review Board.-The
premature release of prisoners sentenced to
imprisonment for life shall be considered by the
“State Sentence Review Board”. The State Sentence
Review Board shall have the following members:-
(a) Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Jail
Department – Chairman
(b) Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs
Department-Member
(c) Director General, Jail and Correctional Services-
Member-Secretary
(d) Director General of Police or any nominated Police
Officer not below the rank of Inspector General of
Police-Member
6
(e) Senior Law Officer/Chief Probation Officer, Jail
Department-Member
8. Having considered the entire facts and situation of the case
and the material available on record and looking to the fact
that the petitioner who is an octogenarian and running from
pillar to post for redressal of his grievance in respect of release
of his son who is said to be detained in the Central Jail Durg
since last 2 decades, in the interest of justice, the State
Sentence Review Board is directed to consider the grievance of
the petitioner which have been made for remission of his son,
expeditiously preferably within 2 months from today, in
accordance with law on its own merits.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case and the State Sentence Review Board
may pass appropriate orders as per the extant rules.
10.With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib/Amardeep