1 2026:CGHC:1107-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 654 of 2025 Jai Singh S/o Bhakturam Bhagat Aged About 55 Years R/o Jam Bahaar, P.S. Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh, C.G., Presently Lodged In Raipur Central Jail, Durg, C.G., Since In Jail Through His Friend Haldhar Patel, S/o Arjun Patel, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Banekela Mukhyabasti, Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Services) Jail Department, Jail Headquarters, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jail Superintendent Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.08 17:56:07 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the application of the petitioner for pre-mature release/remission with 45 days from the date of order, in accordance with law. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 325, 5068,364, 302, 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No.63/2009 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G) and was sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping and causing death of one Nasim Khan. She further submits that criminal appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2016 in CRA No.565/2013. The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 33285/2019 filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been 3 dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2021. She also submits that the petitioner has already served more than 20 years 09 months and 02 days (including remission) in jail as on 08.12.2025 and his conduct has remained satisfactory in jail. The petitioner made an application on 23.01.2025 under the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the opinion of the Presiding Officer of the learned trial Court was received on 07.02.2025. However, the said application was returned on 18.06.2025 for obtaining a fresh opinion, pursuant to which a fresh application was submitted on 14.07.2025. The said application is still pending consideration and has neither been allowed nor rejected by the respondent State authorities. She contended that one of the co-accused person who was also convicted along with the petitioner namely Bodhan Yadav has already been pre-maturely released on 05.06.2025. The action of the respondent State in not deciding the application of the petitioner is arbitrary and even as per the Provisions of the amended Rule 358 of the Prison Rules as time span of 120 days has been provided for deciding the application of pre-mature release/remission. 4. Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, while opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application preferred by the petitioner seeking remission of the remaining part of sentence under Section 432 of the Code of 4 Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is presently pending consideration before the competent authority. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Baghel that the matter is still under process and opinions have already been sought from the learned Sentencing Court as well as the District Magistrate concerned. He further submits that the petitioner’s case shall be placed before the State Sentence Review Board and a decision thereon shall be taken within the prescribed/stipulated period, strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules and policy governing remission. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended with the petition. 7. Having regard to the prolonged pendency of the petitioner’s application for remission, the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, and the fact that requisite opinions from the Sentencing Court have already been obtained, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s application deserves to be decided expeditiously. 8. Accordingly, while refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, it is directed that the pending application submitted by the petitioner for grant of remission of the remaining part of sentence shall be placed before the State Sentence 5 Review Board/competent authority and shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law and the applicable remission policy, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is found eligible, the competent authority shall pass an appropriate reasoned order without any unnecessary delay. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu