##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:4848-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPCR No. 59 of 2026

Teejram @ Teeju Sahu S/o Shri Baigaram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o

Village Bavanbudi, Police Station- Jaijaipur, District Sakti C.G.

... Petitioner

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 Services

Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G.

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

---Respondent

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate

For Respondents/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shr i Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

29/01/2026

1.

Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well

VED as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing

PRAKASH

DEWANGAN

on behalf of the State/respondents.

Digitally signed

by VED PRAKASH

DEWANGAN

Date: 2026.01.30

19:08:41 +0530

2

2.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with 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 and

quash/set-aside the order dated 25.09.2025

(Annexure P/1) issued by the Learned 1^st

Additional Session Judge Sakti, District- Janjgir-

Champa (C.G.);

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue a suitable writ, order or direction

commanding the respondents to put/present the

case of the petitioner for remission of rest part of

sentence (in other words for pre mature release)

under section 473 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha

Sanhita 2023/432 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure 1973 before the Learned 1 Additional

Session Judge Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa

(C.G.) for fresh consideration and for giving fresh

opinion under section 473(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita 2023/432(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure 1973 and the learned

sentencing Court may kindly be directed to

3

provide opinion accompanied with adequate

reasoning after taking into consideration the

relevant factors as laid down in Laxman Naskar

Vs. Union of Indian reported in (2000) 2 SCC

595;

10.4 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 of the petitioner for remission of

rest part of sentence as early as possible

preferably within a period of 30 days or within any

other suitable period; and

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in

favour of the petitioner."

3.

Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a

prisoner presently lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). He

remained in judicial custody from 12.07.2010 to 04.08.2020 and from

25.01.2021 to 10.07.2021 and thereafter has again been

continuously in custody since 28.07.2021. The custody particulars

stand duly substantiated by information furnished under the Right to

Information Act, 2005.

4.

The petitioner was tried in Sessions Trial No. 162/2010 and was

convicted by judgment dated 07.12.2011 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.),

4

under Sections 323/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three

months for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and to undergo

imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence

under Section 302/34 IPC, with a default sentence of four months'

rigorous imprisonment.

5.

Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the

petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 145/2012 before this Court,

which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 17.07.