1 2026:CGHC:1599-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 12 of 2026 Santosh S/o Shri Dukhuram Suryavanshi Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Daija, P.S. Takhatpur, 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(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. 2 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “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 its 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 Procedure1973/473 of 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. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in causing delay in deciding 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 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. 4. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has undergone actual jail sentence for the period more than 16 years and has completed more than 22 years of imprisonment together with earned remission, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to remission under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (under 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023). The fresh application preferred by the petitioner for remission of the rest part of sentence is 3 pending since August 2025 and a period of more than 04 months has already expired but it is the extreme arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities who are causing delay in deciding the case/prayer of the petitioner for remission of rest part of sentence under section 432 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 473 of the BNSS. 5. Mr. Soni further submits that earlier, the petitioner had filed WP(Cr) No. 353/2025 challenging the provisions of Rule 358(3)(g)(two) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 1968 as well as the letter/order dated 04.09.2024 issued by the Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Home (Jail) Department. The said petition WP(Cr) No. 353/2025 was disposed of on 30.06.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to make an application for remission in view of the amended provisions given in Rule 358 of the Rules of 1968 and in furtherance of the said order, the petitioner made application for premature release but the same has not been decided till date. 6. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that this is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a petition being WP(Cr.) No. 353/2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.06.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application for remission in view of the amended provision given in Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule, 1968 and the same was further directed to be considered by the concerned authority, as expeditiously as possible. 7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents also endorses the fact that the petitioner’s case for remission is still pending for consideration. 4 8. In view of the above submission, the respondent authority concerned is directed to decide the case of the petitioner for remission as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.01.13 17:39:43 +0530