BHAGWAT PRASAD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010331892026 2026:CGHC:38294-DB
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
Date:
2026.09.01
10:28:58
+0530
NAFR
SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 509 of 2026
Bhagwat Prasad S/o Shri Kheekhram Kashyap, Aged About 55 Years (About
40 Years At The Time Of Intry Into Jail), R/o Village -Loharsi, Police Station -
Shivarinarayan, District -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
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 Sevices Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
31.08.2026
1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. Somya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 and

2
227 of the Constitution of India seeking 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 commanding the respondents
to consider and decide the case/prayer of the petitioner for
remission of rest part of sentence under section 432 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (now under section 473 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023) and under Rule 358
of C.G. Prisons Rule 1968 as early as possible preferably
within a period of 30 days or within any other suitable period;
and
10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The petitioner, a convicted prisoner presently lodged in Central Jail,
Bilaspur, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Janjgir, vide judgment dated 30.01.2010 in Sessions Trial No.183/2009
for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the IPC
and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by
this Court on 04.12.2014 and the Special Leave Petition filed before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 27.07.2015. The
petitioner has undergone more than 16 years and 04 months of actual
incarceration and more than 21 years including earned remission. On
27.02.2025, he submitted an application for remission of the unexpired
portion of his sentence under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., pursuant to
which the opinion of the learned sentencing Court was obtained, and
vide letter dated 22.03.2025, the learned Court expressed no objection
to his release on completion of 20 years of sentence, subject to the

3
applicable rules and absence of any other pending criminal case.
Thereafter, his case was forwarded to the competent authority on
18.04.2025. The petitioner again submitted an application for
premature release/remission on 03.07.2025, whereafter a jail report
was prepared and the opinion of the District Magistrate was sought.
However, instead of taking a final decision, the case was returned on
25.03.2026 for rectification of certain shortcomings and thereafter
further correspondence was made with the District Magistrate. Despite
the petitioner having fulfilled the requisite period of incarceration and
despite the pendency of his case since 27.02.2025, no final decision
has been taken on his claim for premature release/remission under
Section 432 Cr.P.C. (now Section 473 of the BNSS, 2023) and Rule
358 of the C.G. Prisons Rules, 1968. Aggrieved by the inordinate and
unexplained delay on the part of the respondent authorities, the
petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for
consideration and disposal of his case for remission/premature release.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has
undergone more than 16 years and 04 months of actual incarceration
and has completed more than 21 years of imprisonment including
earned remission, and therefore, his case for remission/premature
release is required to be considered in accordance with Section 432 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 473 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and Rule 358 of the C.G.
Prisons Rules, 1968. He would further submit that the petitioner
submitted his application for remission on 27.02.2025 and, despite the
opinion of the learned sentencing Court dated 22.03.2025 expressing
no objection to his release on completion of 20 years of sentence,

4
subject to the applicable rules, and despite subsequent proceedings
undertaken by the prison authorities, no final decision has been taken
till date and the matter has remained pending for an inordinate period.
Learned counsel would contend that such unexplained and undue
delay on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He would
further submit that the State of Chhattisgarh has framed a policy
governing premature release/permanent remission of eligible prisoners
and, once such a policy is in existence, it is incumbent upon the State
authorities to consider the cases of all eligible convicts in an objective,
fair and transparent manner. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 349, learned counsel would submit
that the State cannot keep the claim of an eligible convict pending or
deny consideration merely on account of procedural delay, as the
implementation of a premature release policy has to conform to the
constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21. He would,
therefore, pray that the respondents be directed to consider and decide
the petitioner’s case for remission/premature release expeditiously and
strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules and
policy.
5. Learned State counsel also endorses the fact that the petitioner’s case
for remission is still pending for consideration.
6. In view of the above submissions, the respondent authority concerned
is directed to decide the case of the petitioner for remission as early as
possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of
production of a copy of this order, in accordance with law on its own

5
merits.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika