Man Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5513 Chatt

                                           1

                                                                              NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              WPCR No. 2 of 2022
     • Man Singh S/o Shri Jagbandhan Singh Aged About 57 Years
       Caste Gond, Resident Of Village Akalasarai, Police Station
       Sonhat, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Petitioner
                                       Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Home Secretary,
        Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal
        Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
     2. Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur
        Chhattisgarh.
     3. Jail Superintendent Of Police Central Jail Raipur, District Raipur
        Chhattisgarh.
     4. Superintendent        Of     Police     Baikunthpur,       District    Korea
        Chhattisgarh.
     5. Station House Officer Police Station Sonhat, District Korea
        Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---- Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Shri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For respondents/State :Shri Gurudev I Sharan, Govt. Advocate

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 05.9.2022

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India along with Section 432 of the CrPC has been instituted by the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life upon being convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 201/34 IPC vide judgment dated 27.9.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Koria (Baikunthpur) in Session Case No.31/2006.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and he is serving jail sentence for

more than 20 years, hence, he moved an application for grant of remission to the respondent authorities, but the same has not been decided yet. It is further submitted that it seems that since the concerning Presiding Judge has given negative opinion in respect of grant of remission to the petitioner, the respondent authorities have not decided his application for grant of remission. Hence, the petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to decide the remission application of the petitioner expeditiously.

3. Learned counsel for the State conceded the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that remission application of the petitioner has not been decided yet.

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

5. On perusal of the record and as per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC and serving life sentence in the jail. Perusal of documents enclosed with the petition would go to show that the petitioner is languishing in jail for more than 20 years, despite that his remission application has not been decided by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to decide remission application filed by the petitioner as early as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. It is made clear that if required, the respondent authorities may further seek opinion of the Presiding Judge of concerned Court under Section 432 of the CrPC in view of 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.

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

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini