1 2025:CGHC:50555-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 532 of 2025 Prem Lal Suryawanshi S/o Shri Bisali Ram Suryawanshi Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Chakarbeda, Police Station - Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director General of Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh Head Quarter - Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.10 19:35:01 +0530 2 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 the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents 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 memo dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge Bilaspur (C.G.); 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to put/present the case of the petitioner for remission of rest part of sentence (in other words for pre mature release) under Section 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 before the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) for fresh consideration and for giving fresh opinion under Section 473(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the learned sentencing court may kindly be directed to provide opinion accompanied with adequate reasoning after taking 3 into consideration the relevant factors as laid down in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 595; 10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and decide the application (Annexure P/5) preferred by the petitioner for remission of rest part of sentence as early as possible preferably within a period of 30 days or within any other suitable period; and 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 21.09.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2009, under Sections 302, 201, 394, and 404 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/–, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/–, and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 201 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to 4 pay a fine of Rs. 200/–, and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 394 of the IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/–, and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 404 of the IPC. It is further submitted that being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal being CRA No. 969 of 2012, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 05.10.2024, the petitioner submitted an application for remission of the remaining part of his sentence under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. through the Superintendent of Jail. Thereafter, on 08.10.2024, the respondent No. 3 issued a letter requesting the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) to furnish an opinion under Section 432(2) of the Cr.P.C. Subsequently, a reminder letter dated 23.12.2024 was issued to the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, requesting submission of the said opinion. Again, on 07.01.2025, the respondent No. 3 addressed another letter to the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, seeking opinion regarding remission of the remaining part of the sentence of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response thereto, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) issued a memo dated 20.01.2025, giving a negative opinion under Section 473(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / 5 Section 432(2) of the Cr.P.C., observing that since the petitioner had been convicted in a triple murder case, it would not be proper to extend the benefit of remission to him. Learned counsel submits that the said negative opinion has resulted in inaction on the part of the competent authority, and despite lapse of about one year, the petitioner’s application for remission (Annexure P/5) filed on 05.10.2024 remains undecided. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled to consideration of his case for remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., and that a fair decision cannot be taken without obtaining a proper and reasoned opinion from the sentencing court. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another, reported in (2023) 17 SCC 297, wherein it has been held that in case of an adverse opinion of the trial Court, the competent authority may obtain a fresh opinion before deciding the issue of remission. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner is essentially challenging the opinion of the competent authority. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 8. In view of the submissions and considering the facts of the case, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for remission, stated to have been made through 6 the Superintendent of Jail on 05.10.2024, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if not already decided. 9. It is further observed that, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh (supra), the competent authority, if it so deems appropriate, may obtain a fresh opinion from the concerned trial Judge before passing a reasoned and speaking order on the said application. 10. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed off with the aforesaid directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan