1 2025:CGHC:26562-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 326 of 2025 Thirra @ Bablu @ Sunil Kumar Porte S/o Sadanand Porte Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Rakeli, P.S. - Darima, District - Sarguja (C.G.), Presently In Central Jail Ambikapur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail), Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Jail and Correctional Services Chhattisgarh Sector-19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Through Director General Prisoners, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Ambikapur, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4. District Magistrate / Collector District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.24 10:41:36 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 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 the entire records pertaining to the grievance of the petitioner from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order No. F 4-73/तीन-जेल/2024, dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P/5), issued by the respondent No. 1 and declare it to be not-est, without authority of law and contrary to the principle of natural justice. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pass fresh order deciding the remission of the petitioner/convict in the light of provisions of law. 10.4 Cost of the litigation/petition be allowed. 3 10.5 Any other relief(s) may be given to the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in jail since 12.11.2008 as he was convicted and sentencing under Sections 364, 376(1) and 302 of the IPC, imprisonment for life (three counts) and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (three counts) and under Section 201 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/0 in default of each fine sentences further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) dated 13.02.2013 in S.T. No. 18 of 2009. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submit application under Section 432(1) of the Cr.P.C. (now under Section 473(1) of the BNSS, 2023) before jail authorities and jail authority sent application of petitioner before the learned trial Court for obtaining opinion for releasing petitioner on remission, but the learned trial Court given negative opinion. He also contended that after obtaining opinion from learned trial Court, jail authorities/respondent No. 3 sent application to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 sent the application of the petitioner including the other prisoners to the State Government on 31.07.2024 for consideration. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 17.04.2025 dismissed the application of the petitioner because the learned trial Court given opinion against the petitioner. He also submits that the Sections 432 and 433 of 4 the Cr.P.C. (now under Sections 473 and 474 in BNSS, 2023) permitted to release the prisoner’s who have completed more than the 14 years of substantive jail sentence. Hence, this petition. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per Rule 358(3)(छ)(एक) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968, prisoners convicted under Sections 376, 376 - A, B, C, and D of the IPC and serving life imprisonment are not eligible for consideration for remission. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for remission of the remaining sentence. Hence, the present is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition along with the annexures annexed in this case. 8. From perusal of order dated 17.04.2025, it is evident that the respondent No. 1 after thorough examination of the proposal received from the Jail Headquarters (C.G.), it was found that the petitioner, enraged by the victim's father scolding him, committed rape on the approximately 04 year old victim in a fit of revenge and caused her death by pressing her nose and mouth. 9. Considering the circumstances of the case and the period spent in custody, the learned trial Court has given a clear opinion against remission of the remaining sentence of the petitioner. Further, as per Rule 358(3)(छ)(एक) of the Chhattisgarh Jail Rules, 1968, prisoners convicted under Sections 376, 376 - A, B, C, and D of the IPC and serving life imprisonment are not eligible for consideration for remission, therefore, 5 the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 432(1) of the Cr.P.C. (now under Section 473(1) of the BNSS, 2023), after considering the opinions of the learned trial Court, Jail Superintendent, Director General of Prisons, and Law Department, and in compliance with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, does not grant remission of the remaining sentence to the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition and accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan