1 2026:CGHC:10665-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 122 of 2026 Nanu Verma @ Satyanarayan S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o Katiyapara, P.S. City Kotwali Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director General of Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh. Head Quarter Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.03.02 17:21:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02 .03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present 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 commanding the respondents to consider and decide the case/prayer of the petitioner for remission of rest part of sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973/473 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as early as possible preferably within a period of 30 days or within any other suitable period; and 10.3 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 by judgment dated 12.10.2009 passed by the learned 1st 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.09.2008 and has undergone actual imprisonment of more than 16 years and 06 months. With earned remission, he has completed approximately 21 years and 11 months of sentence and has thus become eligible for consideration of remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.10.2009, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 907 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court. The said appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 03.12.2014, whereby the conviction and sentence were affirmed. It is further submitted that in November 2024, the petitioner moved an application seeking remission of the remaining part of his sentence under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, on 05.11.2024, the respondent authorities sought the opinion of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in respect of the petitioner’s case for grant of remission. Thereafter, on 16.12.2024, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge furnished his opinion and did not raise any objection to the release of the petitioner under remission. 5. Learned counsel further submits that on 19.12.2024, the 4 petitioner’s case for grant of remission under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. was forwarded to the competent authority along with the relevant records prepared by the jail authorities. It is also submitted that in August 2025, the petitioner once again submitted an application from within the jail seeking pre-mature release/remission of the remaining part of his sentence. On 27.08.2025, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.), prepared a jail report in terms of Rule 358 of the C.G. Prisons Rules, 1968 and, on the same day, addressed a communication to the District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.), requesting his opinion in the prescribed format with regard to the petitioner’s pre- mature release. 6. It is further submitted that despite submission of the fresh application in August 2025 and completion of the preliminary procedural steps, no effective action has been taken by the respondent authorities for deciding the petitioner’s case for pre-mature release/remission. Information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 reveals that, except for preparation of the jail report and calling for the opinion of the District Magistrate, no further progress has been made in the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for remission has been pending since November 2024 and more than one year and three months have elapsed without any final decision being taken by the competent authority/State Sentence Review Board. It is contended that such inaction and delay on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner, having 5 undergone more than 16 years and 06 months of actual imprisonment and approximately 21 years and 11 months including earned remission, is entitled to consideration of his case in accordance with law. Having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for expeditious consideration of his pending application. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s application is under consideration and shall be decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law within the stipulated time. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for remission, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the competent authority/State Sentence Review Board to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application for remission in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan