Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
RAJKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPCR No. 76 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishi Rahul Soni
For the Respondents: Priyank Rathi
The court directed the state authorities to decide a pending application for remission of sentence within a specified timeframe (six weeks) to prevent arbitrary delay in the exercise of statutory powers.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to decide the application for remission of sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has undergone more than 16 years of actual imprisonment and over 20 years including earned remission, but the application filed in April 2024 remains pending. The court found that the application for remission is indeed pending consideration. The primary issue is whether the delay in deciding the remission application is arbitrary. The court observed that since the application is pending, it must be decided within a reasonable timeframe to ensure the petitioner's rights are addressed. 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.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for direction to decide remission application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's eligibility and admission of pending application. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. direction to decide remission within six weeks. (Para 6 , 7) |
DMAAiOg DiHt Ia LAl MKy HMsi AgENnDed by D18a:t3e8: :21012 +6.00523.005
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the 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 1973/473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 as early as possible preferably within a period of 30 days or within any other suitable period; and
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. 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 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.)/473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).
4. 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 20 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 Section 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ). The application preferred by the petitioner for remission of the rest part of sentence is pending since April 2024 and a period of more than 1 year and 08 months has already lapsed 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.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents also endorses the fact that the petitioner’s case for remission is still pending for consideration.
6. 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.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of
