1 2025:CGHC:59911-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 625 of 2025 Suresh Kumar Dehre S/o Sitaram Dehre Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sambalpur P S Nandghat, District Durg C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home And Jail Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, C.G. 2 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Durg C.G. 3 - Superintendent Of Police, District Durg C.G. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P S Nandghat, District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.11 10:47:52 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petitioner has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief:- “A. Call for the records of the case pertaining to the case of the petitioner. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for release in parity with the co-accused persons. C. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a convicted prisoner whose conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 302, 364 and 147 IPC, as affirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court, have attained finality. He was released temporarily during the COVID-19 pandemic pursuant to Government orders issued in compliance with judicial directions. Due to his Covid-19 infection, the subsequent illness of his family members, and the death of his father and brother, he could not surrender within the stipulated period and was later taken into custody on 06.06.2021, where he continues to remain in custody. 3 While similarly situated co-accused persons have been considered for release, the petitioner has been informed that his case is still under consideration owing to a change in policy, resulting in discriminatory treatment. He has therefore approached this Court seeking a direction to the authorities to consider and decide his case for release at par with the co- accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner stands on the same footing as the co-accused persons who have already been released, and therefore, his case also deserves similar consideration on the ground of parity. It is submitted that the Petitioner could not surrender in time due to the Covid-19 pandemic and consequent deaths in his family, and has now undergone more than one year of incarceration after the release of the co-accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has completed over 18 years of substantive jail sentence, has maintained good conduct, has no criminal antecedents, and fulfills all the conditions of the State remission policy. Therefore, the continued delay in considering his case violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, entitling him to the reliefs sought by him. The petitioner is entitled to pre-mature release under section 473 of the BNSS 2023 (432 of the Cr.P.C.). Further, the provision given in Rule 358 of C.G. Prisons Rule 1968 has been amended vide notification dated 23.04.2025 and at present there is no bar/ban on pre-mature release of the prisoners 4 convicted under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, and therefore, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for pre- mature release under section 473 of BNSS 2023 (432 of the Cr.P.C.). Also, several prisoners convicted under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 have been released under remission of the rest part of sentence but in so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the remission has not been granted on the ground of the bar/ban given in Rule 358(3)(g) (two) of C.G. Prisons Rule 1968 and it is nothing but a clear discrimination again the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State would submit that though there is bar/ban given in Rule 358(3)(g) (two) of C.G. Prisons Rule 1968, however, the provision given in Rule 358 of C.G. Prisons Rule 1968 has been amended vide notification dated 23.04.2025 and at present, there is no bar/ban on pre-mature release of the prisoners convicted under section 302/149 of the IPC, and therefore, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for pre-mature release under section 473 of BNSS 2023 (432 of the Cr.P.C.). 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to make an application for remission in view of the amended provision given in Rule 358 of C.G. Prisons Rule, 1968 and the same shall be considered by the concerned authority, as 5 expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 7. The Director General (Prison), State of Chhattisgarh is directed to ensure that the prisoner with identical situation be provided all the proper assistance for making a requisite application for remission in pursuance of the amended provision given in Rule 358 of C.G. Prisons Rule, 1968. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the copy of this order to the Director General (Prison), State of Chhattisgarh forthwith for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice $ Bhilwar