1 2026:CGHC:899-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 652 of 2025 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, Durg (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 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, Central Jail Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent, Raipur Central Jail, Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.01.2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.01.07 18:43:32 +0530 2 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy 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 decided 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 is a prisoner presently lodged in Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) and has been continuously in judicial custody since 12.08.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 7.5.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 63/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 325, 506B, 364, 302, 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years, RI for five years , RI for five years, RI for five years, imprisonment for life, imprisonment for life with fine, as detailed in the said judgment. 4. Ms. Singhvi further submits that the criminal appeal filed by the 3 petitioner, being Criminal Appeal No.564/2013, was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 10/11/2016. Thereafter, in August 2024, the petitioner submitted an application from jail seeking remission of the remaining part of his sentence which was sent for opinion of the learned trial Court on 23/08/2024, however, the same was returned back by the Respondent State on 12/02/2025 with an observation that the application of the petitioner shall be considered only after he completes 20 years of imprisonment. 5. Ms. Aditi Singvi, would contend that earlier the petitioner had preferred a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.25141/2024, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 10/07/2024 was pleased to direct the respondent State that if any representation of pre-mature release/remission is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. She would next contend that thereafter a fresh application was made by the petitioner in the month of March 2025 and the same is still pending. Therefore, 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 a time span of 120 days has been provided for deciding the application of pre-mature release/remission. She further submits that the petitioner has already undergone more than 20 years of actual incarceration and has completed more than 20 years 11 Months and 20 days (including remission), thereby making him eligible for 4 consideration of remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Despite eligibility, the petitioner’s application for remission has been kept pending for about 11 months without any lawful justification, which amounts to gross arbitrariness, administrative apathy and violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. Consequently, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate directions for expeditious consideration and decision of his case for remission of the remaining part of sentence. 6. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy 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 Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is presently pending consideration before the competent authority. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Jaiswal 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 5 accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules and policy governing remission. 8. 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. 9. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in continuous incarceration since 12.08.2009, stands convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 325, 506B, 364, 302, 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and has already undergone more than 20 years of actual imprisonment and over 20 years 11 Months of imprisonment including earned remission. It is also apparent from the record that Respondent State on 12/02/2025 had made an observation that the application of the petitioner shall be considered only after he completes 20 years of imprisonment; the petitioner’s application for remission has been pending since March 2025 and despite lapse of considerable time, no final decision has yet been taken by the competent authority. 10. 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. 6 11. 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 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. 12. 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. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu