1 2026:CGHC:4847-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 38 of 2026 Rajaram Sahu S/o Shri Baigaram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Bavanbudi, Police Station- Jaijaipur, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner 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 ---Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.30 19:02:50 +0530 2 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 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 and quash/set-aside the order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Learned 1st Additional Session Judge Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.); 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to put/present the case of the petitioner for remission of rest part of sentence (in other words for pre mature release) under section 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023/432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 before the Learned 1 Additional Session Judge Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for fresh consideration and for giving fresh opinion under section 473(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023/432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the learned sentencing Court may kindly be directed to 3 provide opinion accompanied with adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors as laid down in Laxman Naskar Vs. Union of Indian reported in (2000) 2 SCC 595; 10.4 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 of the petitioner for remission of rest part of sentence as early as possible preferably within a period of 30 days or within any other suitable period; and 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. " 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a prisoner presently lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). He remained in judicial custody from 12.07.2010 to 04.08.2020 and thereafter has again been continuously in custody since 26.01.2021. The custody particulars stand duly substantiated by information furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. The petitioner was tried in Sessions Trial No. 162/2010 and was convicted by judgment dated 07.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), under Sections 323/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4 He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, with a default sentence of four months' rigorous imprisonment. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 145/2012 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 17.07.2017, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner. 6. After having undergone substantial period of incarceration, the petitioner, in August 2025, submitted an application from jail seeking remission/pre-mature release of the remaining part of his sentence. In furtherance thereof, the respondent authorities, vide letter dated 22.08.2025, sought the opinion of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. Pursuant to the said communication, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, passed an order dated 25.09.2025 giving a negative opinion under Section 473(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, principally on the ground that the petitioner stands convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and, in view of Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, cases of life convicts are not to be placed before the Remission Board for pre-mature release. 5 8. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite his application for remission having been pending since August 2025 and despite the lapse of considerable time after obtaining the opinion of the sentencing Court, no further steps have been taken by the competent authorities to decide his claim for remission. According to the petitioner, he is otherwise entitled to consideration for remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the inaction of the respondents, allegedly influenced solely by the negative opinion of the sentencing Court, has resulted in the petitioner's application being left undecided, thereby causing serious prejudice to his statutory right of fair and timely consideration for pre- mature release. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, earlier the co- accused (Taran Prasad Sahu) had preferred a petition before this Court vide WPCR No. 37 of 2026 (Taran Prasad Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), which has been allowed on 21.01.2026. He would further prayed that in the light of the order dated 21.01.2026, passed in WPCR No. 37 of 2026, the present petition may also be considered in similar terms. 10. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief merely on the ground that a co-accused, namely Taran Prasad Sahu, was granted relief by this Hon’ble Court in WPCR No. 37 of 2026 vide order dated 21.01.2026. It is a settled position of law that the principle of parity cannot be applied 6 mechanically and each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances. The order passed in WPCR No. 37 of 2026 was based on the specific role, allegations, and factual matrix pertaining to the said co-accused, which are materially different from those of the present petitioner. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner stands on a distinct footing and his involvement in the alleged offence is graver in nature. The material collected during investigation prima facie discloses active participation of the petitioner, and therefore, the benefit extended to the co-accused cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is further submitted that the order dated 21.01.2026 does not lay down any binding precedent nor does it create an automatic entitlement in favour of the petitioner. Grant of similar relief without examining the individual role and conduct of the petitioner would be contrary to settled principles of criminal law. In view of the above facts and circumstances, learned State Counsel humbly prays that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the documents, annexures, and records placed on file along with the writ petition. 12. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the pleadings, documents and material placed on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of incarceration and that his application for remission/pre-mature release has been pending consideration since August, 2025. It is also an admitted 7 position that though the opinion of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, was sought under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and a negative opinion was rendered vide order dated 25.09.2025, no final decision has yet been taken by the competent authority on the petitioner’s claim for remission. 13. This Court is of the considered view that the opinion of the sentencing Court under Section 473(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is only one of the factors to be taken into account by the appropriate Government and is not binding in nature. The competent authority is under a statutory obligation to independently consider the case of the convict for remission by applying the relevant parameters, including those laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595. Mere reliance on the negative opinion of the sentencing Court or on Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, without undertaking such independent consideration, would defeat the very object of the statutory scheme governing remission. 14. As regards the objection of the State based on the principle of parity, this Court finds that the relief granted in WPCR No. 37 of 2026 was not in the nature of an automatic grant of remission, but was confined to directing proper and lawful consideration of the case of the co- accused in accordance with law. The present petitioner is seeking a similar relief of consideration and decision of his pending application in a fair, reasoned and time-bound manner. In that view of the matter, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s 8 entitlement to remission, this Court finds no impediment in extending similar directions to the present petitioner. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in similar terms as WPCR No. 37 of 2026. The impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, is set aside to the extent it treats the petitioner’s case as not liable for further consideration. The respondent authorities are directed to place the case of the petitioner before the competent authority for consideration of remission/pre-mature release strictly in accordance with Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and in the light of the principles laid down in Laxman Naskar (supra). Such consideration and decision shall be undertaken expeditiously, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for remission, which shall be decided independently by the competent authority in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved