1 2026:CGHC:26524-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 346 of 2026 Nehrulal Patel S/o Kanhaiyyalal Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Amapali, P.S. Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) Presently Lodged In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) Since In Jail Through His Brother In Law, Haldhar Patel, S/o Arjun Patel, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Banekela Mukhyabasti, Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Additional Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Services), Jail Department, Jail Headquarters, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent Raipur Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Aditi Shinghvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.01 10:19:15 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30 .06 .2026 1. Heard Ms.Aditi Shinghvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities and direct the Respondent State to prematurely release the petitioner, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 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. The petitioner's application seeking remission of sentence/premature release has been rejected by the respondent/State vide order dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that, apart from the present case in which he stands convicted, he has 20 criminal antecedents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has undergone more than 21 years of incarceration. 5. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for 3 the respondents/State submits that, in terms of sub-rule (4)(ii) of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 (for short, "the Rules of 1968"), the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are also required to be taken into consideration while considering his claim for remission. It is submitted that the petitioner has 20 criminal antecedents excluding the present one, though all such cases pertain to the period prior to the year 2009. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that, except for two criminal cases i.e., Crime No.55/2006 and Crime No.46/2009 registered at Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, the petitioner has been acquitted in all the remaining cases. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that there is no documentary material on record to establish that, out of the said 20 criminal cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in 18 cases, excluding the two cases referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is presently not in possession of the copies of the acquittal orders, as the cases are of considerable antiquity. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner's application for remission of sentence has been rejected vide order dated 06.04.2026 on the ground of his criminal antecedents in terms of sub-rule (4)(ii) of Rule 358 of the Rules of 1968, and in the absence of any documentary material substantiating the petitioner's plea of acquittal in the aforesaid cases, we do not find any good ground 4 to entertain the present writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach this Court afresh, if he is able to produce documentary evidence demonstrating that, except for the two criminal cases referred to hereinabove, he has been acquitted in the remaining criminal cases, so as to enable reconsideration of his claim in the light of sub-rule (4)(ii) of Rule 358 of the Rules of 1968. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu