Chattisgarh High Court
Jay Jaiswal @ Gudda Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:20410-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 483 of 2024
1 - Jay Jaiswal @ Gudda Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Bajrang Prasad Jaiswal
Aged About 44 Years R/o- Opposite Govt. Multipurpose Higher Secondary
School Dayalband, Police Station- City Kotwali Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh), Present Address- B-415, Sanjay Heights Rajaswa Colony
Sarkanda, Police Station- Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home (Jail)
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Director General 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. Vikrant Pillai, Advocate
For Respondents-State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. G.A..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
05.05.2025
Heard Mr. Vikrant Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. G.A., for the State-respondents and perused the
record.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayers:-
10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for entire records pertaining to the case of the
petitioner for its kind perusal;
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding
the respondent authorities to consider the case of
the petitioner for pre-mature release as early as
possible preferably within a period of one month;
and
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstance of case.
3. The petitioner was vide judgment dated 30.04.2012, passed by the
learned Session Judge Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial
No. 169/2010 convicted under Section 147, 148, 302, 302/149 of IPC
1860 and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act 1959 and maximum sentence has
been awarded by the trial Court under Section 302 of IPC to undergo
imprisonment for life.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
undergone actual jail sentence for the period about 13 years and 11
months. It is pertinent to mention that as on 07.10.2024, 03 years, 10
months and 23 days were earned as remission by the petitioner, therefore
the petitioner has completed more than 17 years of imprisonment together
and earned remission. Learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the
arbitrariness on the part of the respondent-authorities is not considering the
case of the petitioner for pre-mature release under Section 473 of BNSS
2023 (432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973). The term of
imprisonment undergone by the petitioner together with earned remission
is more than 14 years therefore the petitioner is entitled to be considered
for pre-mature release in the light of provision given in Rule 698 of C.G.
Prisons Rule 1968 but the extreme arbitrariness on the part of the
respondent authorities who are not considering the case of the petitioner
for grant of pre-mature release.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that the Rule 358 of the Prisoners
Rule has been amended by the State and necessary notification has been
issued on 23.04.2025 and he states that the pre-mature release of the
petitioner can be decided by State Sentence Review Board and as per the
eligibility of prisoners for consideration before the State Sentence Review
Board, it has been stated that now pre-mature release of the petitioner-
accused is to be considered, if he has completed 14 years of the sentence
and there are sentence exceptions as POCSO, NDPS and other. He states
that the petitioner may move an application before the authorities
concerned, the same shall be decided as per the amended Rule, vide
amendment dated 23.04.2025.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records
7. As per amendment in Rule 358 of Premature release of prisoners
sentences to imprisonment for life:- Rule 358 (5)(i) of the said Rule as
under:-
358(5)(i): Eligibility of Prisoners for consideration
before the State Sentence Review Board:- (i) Prisoners
sentenced to imprisonment for life falling within the purview of
Section 475 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(No. 46 of 2023) or prisoners sentenced to death whose
sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment under the
prevailing law, and who have undergone actual imprisonment
of 14 years.
7. In view of the submission made by the State counsel, the petitioner is
directed to move an application afresh within a period of two weeks and the
concerned authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said application.
8. Accordingly, the present WPCR stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Jyoti
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2025.05.09
10:51:48
+0530
