Omprakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2 - The Director General of Prisons And Correctional Services, Chhattisgarh Head Quarter Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

02.01.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents.

¶20

2

¶21

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-

¶22

“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;

¶23

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 1973/473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as early as possible preferably within a period of 30 days or within any other suitable period; and

¶24

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

3. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a prisoner presently lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) and has been continuously in judicial custody since 15.11.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 26/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324/34 (two counts) and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, rigorous

¶26

3

¶27

imprisonment and life imprisonment with fine, as detailed in the said judgment.

¶28

4. Mr. Soni further submits that the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner, being Criminal Appeal No. 522/2011, was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2018. Thereafter, in September 2024, the petitioner submitted an application from jail seeking remission of the remaining part of his sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Pursuant thereto, a memo dated 28.09.2024 was issued by respondent No. 3 seeking opinion of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti (C.G.), who, vide order dated 21.10.2024, conveyed no objection to the grant of remission in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Soni that subsequently, vide letter dated 19.07.2025, respondent No. 3 sought the opinion of the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in the prescribed format for the purpose of premature release of the petitioner. However, learned counsel submits that from September 2024 till August 2025, the jail authorities have failed to take timely and effective steps for consideration of the petitioner’s case for remission and have merely confined themselves to obtaining opinions, resulting in inordinate delay. The said inaction and delay are clearly borne out from the documents obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He further submits that the petitioner has already undergone more than 16

¶30

4

¶31

years of actual incarceration and has completed more than 21 years of imprisonment including earned remission, thereby making him eligible for consideration of remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Despite eligibility, the petitioner’s application for remission has been kept pending for more than 14 months without any lawful justification, which amounts to gross arbitrariness, administrative apathy and violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. Consequently, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate directions for expeditious consideration and decision of his case for remission of the remaining part of sentence.

¶32

6. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, while opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 / Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is presently pending consideration before the competent authority.

¶33

7. It is submitted by Mr. Jaiswal that the matter is still under process and opinions have already been sought from the learned Sentencing Court as well as the District Magistrate concerned. He

¶34

5

¶35

further submits that the petitioner’s case shall be placed before the State Sentence Review Board and a decision thereon shall be taken within the prescribed/stipulated period, strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules and policy governing remission.

¶36

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended with the petition.

¶37

9. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in continuous incarceration since 15.11.2009, stands convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 324/34 (two counts) and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and has already undergone more than 16 years of actual imprisonment and over 21 years of imprisonment including earned remission. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner’s application for remission has been pending since September 2024; that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti (C.G.) has already furnished a no objection vide order dated 21.10.2024; and that despite lapse of considerable time, no final decision has yet been taken by the competent authority.

¶38

10. Having regard to the prolonged pendency of the petitioner’s application for remission, the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, and the fact that requisite opinions from the Sentencing Court have already been obtained, this Court

¶39

6

¶40

is of the considered view that the petitioner’s application deserves to be decided expeditiously.

¶41

11. Accordingly, while refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, it is directed that the pending application submitted by the petitioner for grant of remission of the remaining part of sentence shall be placed before the State Sentence Review Board/competent authority and shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law and the applicable remission policy, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶42

12. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is found eligible, the competent authority shall pass an appropriate reasoned order without any unnecessary delay.

¶43

13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of .

¶44

Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶45

Anu

Omprakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Parwati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neelesh Bhargav @ Chhota Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Soni Ajay Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K.K. Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Swati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Alakh Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh