Bhanjan Singh S/o Ram Singh Aged About 74 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Village v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.11 10:52:16 +0530 2025:CGHC:11688-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 133 of 2025 Bhanjan Singh S/o Ram Singh Aged About 74 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Village Kodebod, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002. 2 - Director General Jail And Correctional Services, Jail Headquarter, Sector -19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - The District Magistrate District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
dated 11.09.2024 passed by this Court in earlier writ petition being W.P.Cr. No. 328/2024. The same is not being complied by the respondent No. 1 on the application of the petitioner for grant of 3 remission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 has not decided the application of the petitioner afresh within a total period of 3 months from the date of the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the this Court in earlier writ petition being W.P.Cr. No. 328/2024, out of which a period of one month was given for obtaining the opinion from the learned trial court and a maximum period of 2 months from the date of receiving the opinion was given to the Respondent No. 1 to take a decision. He further submits that it is already more than 5½ months have passed but no information is being provided either to the petitioner or to his family members when they contacted to the jail authorities regarding any decision taken by the respondent No. 1/state, therefore there is no other option available to the petitioner than to approach the Hon'ble High court, by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would be justifiable to take proper action or issue appropriate direction(s) to the respondents, in case they have not taken decision on the application of the petitioner as per the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in earlier writ petition being W.P.Cr. No. 328/2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner had submitted an application before the Jail Authorities of the Central Jail Raipur for releasing him from jail by giving benefit under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Superintendent of 4 Jail of Central Jail, Raipur wrote letter dated 13.11.2023 to the Learned Trial Court for obtaining opinion regarding giving benefit of the provision of Sec. 432 of the Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. Thereafter, another letter was written by the Superintendent of Jail of Central Jail, Raipur dated 26.12.2023 to the learned trial Court mentioning therein that, the behavior and conduct of the petitioner was good during the period of sentence served by him and he recommended for giving benefit of remission to the petitioner. 6. On the basis of that, the Learned Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur (C.G.) vide office memorandum dated 01.01.2024 gave his opinion in favour of the petitioner and recommended to grant the benefit of the provision of Sec. 432 of the Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. It is submitted that earlier the respondent No. 1/ State without considering the above opinion of the learned trial Court, vide order dated 05.07.2024 had refused to give benefit of remission of the jail sentence as provided in Sec.432 of the CrPC to the petitioner hence the earlier petition was filed. The application of the petitioner is not being decided in the time frame as per the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.Cr. No. 328/2024. Hence this present petition. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that the matter is still pending before the competent Court in pursuance to the order dated 11.09.2024 and in the meanwhile, petitioner has come up before this Court with the aforesaid relief, hence, the present petition 5 deserves to be dismissed. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the earlier petition of the petitioner has already been allowed vide order dated 11.09.2024 and the matter has already been remitted to the State Government to decide the application of the petitioners for remission afresh and to call for the opinion of the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge afresh and further the matter is subjudice before the competent Court concerned to decide the matter with respect to the remission of sentence of the petitioners. 9. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter, as such, the present petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to law against the non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet
Arguments
: Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.03.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief(s):- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the grievance of the petitioner from the respondent authorities. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to issue appropriate. writ, order or direction to the respondents in order to ascertain and ensure the compliance of the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in earlier writ petition of the petitioner being W.P.Cr. No. 328/2024 as the same is not being complied with by the respondent No. 1 and no decision has been taken by the respondents despite a period of more than 5½ months has passed on the application of the petitioner for grant of remission and further may be pleased to issue appropriate direction in favour of the petitioner, in the ends of justice. 10.3) Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted” 3. The instant petition is being filed being aggrieved by the act of no decision being taken and non action in compliance of the order