[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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. 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
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
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
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
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
