Facts
The petitioner was convicted on 12.10.2009 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment
Source reference: p. 2-3His conviction was affirmed by the High Court in 2014
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4As of the filing, the petitioner has undergone over 16 years and 06 months of actual imprisonment (approx. 21 years and 11 months with remission)
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3In November 2024, the petitioner applied for premature release under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Despite a favorable opinion from the sentencing court on 16.12.2024 and further applications in August 2025, no final decision was taken by the State authorities
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 4-6The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for the respondents to decide his remission prayer within 30 days
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Issues
Whether the respondent authorities are liable to be directed to decide the petitioner's long-pending application for remission within a specified timeline
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Law Applied
The court considered Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and its successor, Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which empower the Government to suspend or remit sentences
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3It further referred to Rule 358 of the C.G. Prisons Rules, 1968, regarding the preparation of jail reports for premature release
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Reasoning
The Court noted the petitioner’s significant period of incarceration, exceeding the eligibility threshold for remission consideration
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7It observed that although procedural steps—such as obtaining the judicial officer’s opinion and preparing jail reports—had been initiated as early as late 2024, the process remained stalled for over 15 months without a final determination
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6-7While the Court declined to rule on the merits of the remission claim itself, it found the administrative delay and inaction to be a sufficient basis for judicial intervention to ensure the statutory right to be considered for remission is exercised by the State in a timely and non-arbitrary manner
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10Holding
The Court disposed of the petition by directing the competent authority/State Sentence Review Board to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending remission application in accordance with the law
The Court ordered that this decision be made expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10-11Original Court PDF
Nanu Verma @ Satyanarayan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [2026:CGHC:10665-DB]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in