Chattisgarh High Court
Sundar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:11395-DB
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
NAFR
TIWARI Date:
2026.03.10
17:27:20
+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 131 of 2026
Sundar S/o Shri Bodhiram Kashyap, Aged About 44 Years (Aged About
27 Years At The Time Of Entry Into Jail), Caste- Kashyap, R/o Village-
Pouna, Police Station- Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa C.G.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail)
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur C.G.
2 - The Director General of Prisons And Correctional Services
Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter- Prisons And Correctional Services
Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G.
3 - The Jail Superintendent, Centra Jail Bilaspur C.G.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.
2
2. By filing of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
"10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.
10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to enlarge Interim relief to the petitioner.
10.3) That, this Hon'ble court may Kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ containing release order of petitioner and declare the arrest as illegal detention.
10.4) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to awards compensation to the petitioner.
10.5) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly take action against the respondent authorities in the interest of justice.
10.6) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the arbitrary and inordinate delay on the part of the respondent authorities in deciding his application for remission of the remaining part of sentence submitted under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the 3 petitioner has already undergone more than 16 years and 06 months of actual imprisonment and more than 21 years and 06 months of imprisonment including earned remission, thereby making him eligible for consideration of remission in accordance with the applicable policy and statutory provisions.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had submitted an application seeking remission in December 2024. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.3 issued a communication dated 19.12.2024 seeking the opinion of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) regarding the petitioner's case. In response, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), by memo dated 30.12.2024, conveyed that there was no objection to the grant of remission to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner's case for remission was forwarded to respondent No.2 on 07.01.2025 for further consideration in accordance with law.
5. It is contended that despite the matter having progressed through the requisite procedural stages and despite the lapse of more than one year, the competent authorities have failed to take any final decision on the petitioner's application. Learned counsel submits that such unexplained and prolonged delay in deciding the petitioner's claim for remission is wholly arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when the petitioner has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration and his case is otherwise fit for consideration under the relevant statutory provisions. It is 4 therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to expeditiously consider and decide the petitioner's application for remission in accordance with law.
6. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, 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, now corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is presently under consideration before the competent authorities of the State Government. It is submitted that the process for examining the petitioner's claim is underway and the same shall be decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law and the applicable policy governing remission.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material placed on record.
8. From the documents appended with the petition, it appears that the petitioner had submitted an application seeking remission of the remaining part of his sentence in December 2024. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority sought the opinion of the learned Sessions Court, and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, by memo dated 30.12.2024, has already conveyed that there is no objection to the grant of remission to the petitioner. The record further reveals that the petitioner has already 5 undergone more than 16 years and 06 months of actual incarceration and more than 21 years and 06 months of imprisonment including earned remission. Despite the matter having progressed through the requisite stages, the petitioner's application is stated to be pending consideration before the competent authority since 07.01.2025.
9. While this Court does not propose to express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim for remission, which is required to be examined by the competent authority in accordance with the statutory framework and the applicable remission policy, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner's application has remained pending for a considerable period of time. In matters concerning remission, which directly relate to the liberty of a convict undergoing sentence, the authorities are expected to act with due promptitude and take a decision within a reasonable time. Prolonged and unexplained delay in considering such applications defeats the very object underlying the statutory provisions relating to remission.
10. In view of the aforesaid and taking into consideration the statement made by learned State Counsel that the petitioner's application is under consideration, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondent authorities, particularly the competent authority/State Sentence Review Board, to consider and take a final decision on 6 the petitioner's application for remission of the remaining part of sentence submitted under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable remission policy.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim and the competent authority shall consider the same independently on its own merits and in accordance with the governing statutory provisions and policy guidelines.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu