1 2025:CGHC:20628-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 269 of 2025 Parsuram Sahu S/o Bhagirathi Sahu, aged about 55 years R/o Sone Silli Thana Gobra Navapara District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Secretary Department of Home Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Director General (Prisons) Jail Headquarters Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Jail Superintendent, Raipur Central Jail Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 0 6 . 05 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Shivang Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “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 20.02.2025 (Annexure P/1), issued by the respondent No. 1 and declare it to be non-est, without authority of law and contrary to the principle of natural justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner under the provision of Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 474 of the BNSS) as he has admittedly completed more then 19 of imprisonment including remission and a recommendation in this regard has also been made by the concerned respondent authorities. 10.4 Cost of the litigation/petition be allowed. 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. The petitioner was vide judgment dated 30.04.2012, passed by the learned Upper Session Judge, Gariyaband, Raipur (CG) in Session Trial No. 38 of 2009 convicted under Section 148, 302/149, 302/149, 302/149, 460, 323/149, 342 of IPC and maximum sentence has been awarded by the trial Court under Section 302/149 of IPC to undergo life imprisonment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has undergone jail sentence for a period about 19 years 07 months and 01 day of imprisonment as on 08.07.2024. Learned counsel 3 for the petitioner is challenging the arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release under Section 474 of BNSS 2023 (432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973). He also submits that the term of imprisonment undergone by the petitioner together with earned remission is more than 14 years therefore the petitioner is entitled to be considered for pre-mature release in the light of provision given in Rule 698 of C.G. Prisons Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Prisons Rules’) but it is extreme arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities who are not considering the case of the petitioner for grant of pre-mature release. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the Rule 358 of the Prisons Rules has been amended by the State and necessary notification has been issued on 23.04.2025 and he states that the pre-mature release of the prisoners can be considered and decided by State Sentence Review Board as per the eligibility of prisoners, if he has completed 14 years of sentence and there are exceptions to sentences awarded under the POCSO Act, NDPS Act and others. He states that the petitioner may move an application before the authorities concerned and the same shall be considered and decided as per the amended Rule, vide amendment dated 23.04.2025. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4 7. As per amendment in Rule 358 of Premature release of prisoners sentences to imprisonment for life:- Rule 358 (5) (i) of the said Rule as under:- “358(5)(i): Eligibility of Prisoners for consideration before the State Sentence Review Board:- (i) Prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life falling within the purview of Section 475 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (No. 46 of 2023) or prisoners sentenced to death whose sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment under the prevailing law, and who have undergone actual imprisonment of 14 years.” 8. In view of the submission made by learned State counsel, the petitioner is directed to move an application afresh within a period of two weeks before the concerned authorities and the concerned authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said application. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra