Disposed¶34

Bhagirathi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2026WPCR/70/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPCR No. 70 of 2026; Article 226; remission of sentence; S. 432 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; S. 473 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; Rule 358 and Rule 358(3)(g)(two) Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 1968; delay/arbitrariness in deciding remission application pending since September 2025; second round after WP(Cr) No. 477/2025 disposed 01.09.2025; over 16 years actual custody, over 22 years with earned remission; direction to decide within six weeks; writ petition disposed of; Ramesh Sinha CJ; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authority concerned to decide the petitioner's case for remission as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order. ¶34

Bhagirathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondent authority concerned to decide the petitioner's case for remission as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' delay in deciding the petitioner's pending application for remission of the rest part of sentence under S. 432 Cr.P.C./S. 473 BNSS is arbitrary and calls for a time-bound direction to the concerned authority. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The respondent authority concerned is directed to decide the petitioner's case for remission as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPCR No. 70 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, disposed 03/02/2026, Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ, with Hon'ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) under Article 226 by a convict aged about 69 years who has undergone more than 16 years' actual imprisonment and more than 22 years including earned remission, complaining of arbitrariness in the respondents' delay in deciding his fresh application, pending since September 2025, for remission of the rest part of sentence under S. 432 Cr.P.C. 1973/S. 473 BNSS 2023. This is the second round of litigation: the earlier petition WP(Cr) No. 477/2025, challenging Rule 358(3)(g)(two) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 1968 and the letter/order dated 08.05.2025 of the Under Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, was disposed of on 01.09.2025 with liberty to apply for remission under the amended Rule 358; the consequent application for premature release remained undecided, a fact endorsed by State counsel. The Court directed the respondent authority concerned to decide the remission case as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from production of a copy of the order, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:5900-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date:2026.02.03 17:59:12 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPCR No. 70 of 2026

¶7

1 - Bhagirathi S/o Shri Lethu Satnami @ Ledhooram Suryavanshi Aged About 69 Years (About 48 Years At The Time Of Entry Into Jail) R/o Village Daija, Police Station- Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Director General Of Prisons And Correctional Sevices Chhattisgarh Head Quarter- Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, C.G.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate

¶15

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

03/02/2026

¶20

Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent/ State.

¶21

By this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for 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

¶26

By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in causing delay in deciding 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.

¶27

Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has undergone actual jail sentence for the period more than 16 years and has completed more than 22 years of imprisonment together with earned remission, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to remission under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (under 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023). The fresh application preferred by the petitioner for remission of the rest part of sentence is pending since September 2025 and a period of more than 03 months has already expired but it is the extreme arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities who are causing delay in deciding the case/prayer of the petitioner for remission of rest part of sentence under section 432 of the Cr.P.C./Section 473 of the BNSS.

¶28

Mr. Soni further submits that earlier, the petitioner had filed WP(Cr) No. 477/2025 challenging the provisions of Rule 358(3)(g)(two) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 1968 as well as the letter/order dated 08.05.2025 issued by the Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Home (Jail) Department. The said petition WP(Cr) No. 477/2025 was disposed of on 01.09.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to make an application for remission in view of the amended provisions given in Rule 358 of the Rules of 1968 and in furtherance of the said order, the petitioner made application for premature release but the same has not

¶29

¶30

been decided till date.

¶31

From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that this is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a petition being WP(Cr.) No. 477/2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.09.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application for remission in view of the amended provision given in Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule, 1968 and the same was further directed to be considered by the concerned authority, as expeditiously as possible.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents also endorses the fact that the petitioner's case for remission is still pending for consideration.

¶33

In view of the above submission, 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.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice

¶36

sagrika

Bhagirathi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirathi 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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ratandeep Ekka

Aasma Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Vs Oxford Trade Centre Bilaspur

Sanjay Mundra Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Ravi Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravindra Nath Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Golu Kaiwartya Vs State of Chhattisgarh