Ramphal Kashyap v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Shri R Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 22/06/2026

#1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State. 2

#2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the legality and validity of the memo dated 25.05.2026 issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, whereby a negative opinion under Section 473(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) has been rendered on the petitioner's claim for premature release/remission. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the opinion of the sentencing Court is cryptic, unsupported by adequate reasons, and has been recorded without independently considering the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595, as reiterated in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 12 SCC 52.

#3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for the following prayer:- “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 memo dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Learned Session Judge 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 3 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 Session Judge 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 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.”

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and is presently undergoing sentence. It is argued that the petitioner has already preferred an application seeking premature release/remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and in terms of sub-section (2) thereof, opinion of the learned Sessions Judge has been sought. However, by memo dated

25.05.2026, the learned Sessions Judge has rendered a negative opinion without assigning adequate reasons and without independently 4 considering the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar (supra), as reiterated in Ram Chander (supra). It is further argued that along with the present petitioner there is one co- accused, namely, Rakesh Kenwat, who has also applied for remission and in his case the Presiding Officer has rendered a positive opinion recommending grant of remission. According to learned counsel, both the petitioner and the said co-accused stand on similar footing and, therefore, recording a negative opinion in the petitioner's case while rendering a positive opinion in the case of the co-accused is arbitrary and requires appropriate consideration by the competent authority.

#5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the opinion rendered by the learned Sessions Judge is only one of the factors to be considered by the competent authority while deciding the application for premature release/remission and the final decision is yet to be taken by the competent authority in accordance with law. It is submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the comparative treatment accorded to the co-accused, the same may appropriately be examined by the competent authority while considering the petitioner's application for remission.

#6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record.

#7. On a pointed query being put to the learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether the co-accused, namely, Rakesh Kenwat, who is stated to have been convicted in the same case, has been granted a positive opinion by the learned Presiding Officer on his application for 5 remission despite both cases arising out of the same occurrence, it has been submitted that a positive opinion has indeed been rendered in favour of the said co-accused, whereas a negative opinion has been given in the case of the present petitioner. Since the petitioner has raised a specific plea of parity on the basis of the opinion rendered in favour of the co-accused, this Court is of the view that the said aspect deserves examination by the competent authority while considering the petitioner's application for remission.

#8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent authority, before whom the petitioner's application for remission/premature release is pending consideration, shall examine the aforesaid aspect, including the plea regarding the opinion rendered in favour of the co-accused, namely, Rakesh Kenwat, and thereafter pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

#9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice