Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6505 Chatt

                                              1

                                                                                   NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               WPCR No. 790 of 2022
     • Gurpreet Singh S/o Shri Balvinder Singh Aged About 35 Years
       R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District :
       Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                           ---- Petitioner
                                          Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
        Home Affairs, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan,
        Matralya, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
     2. Director General Of Police Jail Headquarters, Raipur, District :
        Raipur, Chhattisgarh
     3. Jail Superintendent Ambikapur Central Jail, District : Surguja
        (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
     4. Jail Superitntendent Raipur Central Jail, District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Petitioner : Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Gurudev I Sharan, Govt. Advocate

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 01.11.2022.

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application made by the petitioner for grant of remission and to release him from jail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 397 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and life imprisonment vide judgment dated 16.3.2010 by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Session Trial No.99/2007. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in jail for 15 years substantively, hence, he moved an application for grant of remission to the respondent authorities, but the same has not been decided yet. It is next submitted that since the concerned Presiding Judge has not

given positive opinion in respect of grant of remission to the petitioner, therefore, the respondent authorities have not decided his application yet. Hence, instant petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the remission application of the petitioner expeditiously.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that after completion of the necessary requirement, application of the petitioner has been sent for consideration before respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A/4. It is further submitted that Annexure-A/5, i.e. list enclosed with affidavit of Principal Secretary (Home) shows that name of the petitioner has been mentioned at Sl. No.59 which would show that the application of the petitioner is still pending before appropriate Government for administrative approval. It is further submitted that the application of the petitioner will be considered and decided by the Government expeditiously

5. Considered the submission and perused the material available on record.

6. On perusal of the record and as per the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 397 & 302 IPC and is serving life imprisonment along with other sentences. Annexure-P/1 shows that he is languishing in jail for more than 20 years. Despite that his remission application has not been decided by the appropriate Government. Therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the remission application filed by the petitioner, as early as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. It is made clear that if required, the respondent authorities may further seek opinion of the Presiding Judge of the concerned court under Section 432(2) of CrPC in view of the judgment passed by this Court in WPCR No.755/2021 (Madari @ Abrar Ahmad vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors) and in turn, the Presiding Judge may reconsider his opinion without being influenced by his

earlier opinion, considering the observation made by this Court in aforesaid writ petition.

8. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of with liberty that the petitioner may revive his prayer afresh, if his grievance still subsist.

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini