1 2025:CGHC:22259-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 289 of 2025 1 - Anandi Satnami S/o Shri Puunawa Satnami Aged About 67 Years R/o Imlipara, Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), Through - Jitendra Bhaskar S/o Anandi Satnami, Aged About 36 Years, R/o P.O. - Dhuma, Tahsil - Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary to the Governor, Chhattisgarh State, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Jail And Correctional Services, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The District Magistrate (Collector) Bilaspur, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.22 18:42:11 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate For State/Respondents : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.5.2025 1. Heard Shri Nikhil Wadhwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly allow the petition and direct the respondent no. 01 governor Chhattisgarh State to decide the pending mercy application dated 27/03/2025 in an empathical view looking to his medical condition and age and pass an appropriate order in the mercy petition filed by the petitioner under article 161 of the constitution of India as early as possible days in the interest of Justice. 2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the 3 petitioner.” 3. The instant petition has been preferred against the arbitrary action of the respondent no. 01 who has not decided the mercy petition filed by the petitioner before His Excellency the Governor, on dated 27/03/2025 in spite of the fact that the applicant has only been punished with the imprisonment of 1 year and out of 1 year he has already completed the jail sentence of about 5 months and at present due to paralysis attack he has been admitted in the CIMS Hospital Bilaspur since 16.05.2025 but in spite of the several request letter, no any order has been passed by the respondent on the mercy petition of the petitioner. After due procedure of law, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bilaspur has given reference of the mercy petition under the jail manual Rule 775 under the constitution of law under Article 161 of the Constitution of India under which the respondent no. 01 having jurisdiction to consider and pass the order on the mercy petition but after about 2 months of filing of the aforesaid mercy petition the respondent no. 01 has not taken any decision. Though, according to the relevant law, the petitioner has completed about 5 months out of 1 year of the jail sentence and the petitioner is duly performing the duties assigned to him but till date no order has been passed. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 01 is having full jurisdiction to decide the mercy petition submitted by the petitioner under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and it is not expected from the respondent no. 01 to keep the mercy petition under article 161 for indefinite period because 4 already 2 months have lapsed and looking to the severe medical condition of the petitioner as he is suffering from paralysis and also in view of the fact that the District Magistrate as well as the Superintendent of Police have not made any adverse remark for considering the mercy petition submitted by the petitioner. The respondent no. 01 ought to have passed any appropriate order and decide the mercy petition which is under consideration before him for about past 2 months and for the purpose of deciding the mercy petition all the procedural acts have already been completed, i.e., report from the Collector as well as from the Jail Superintendent regarding the conduct of the petitioner and the Hon'ble Governor also ought to have considered the facts and circumstances of the case in which the petitioner is suffering from paralysis on the left side of his body and he recently has suffered from a paralysis attack and has been admitted in the CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur (C.G.) since 16.05.2025 and he is still going through the treatment and has not been discharged from the CIMS hospital, Bilaspur till date. The petitioner has now already served about 5 months out of 1 year of jail sentence and he has a right to exercise the power of Sec. 433 CrPC vested in the government and it has to be exercised by the government in accordance with rule and established principle. The petitioner has also moved a representation before the concerned authority on 23.04.2025. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the application of the petitioner for deciding the mercy petition is pending before the District Magistrate concerned. The said 5 application is addressed to the Government of Chhattisgarh and it has been informed by the learned State Counsel that as per the instructions received, the application ought to have been sent to the Superintendent of Jail, which has to be forwarded by the Superintendent of Jail to the authorities concerned. He also submits that a fresh application has also been moved for the said purpose on 21.5.2025 through Superintendent of Jail and the same has been forwarded to the District Magistrate. Learned State counsel further submits that the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is not appropriate. Such application can only be addressed through the Superintendent of Jail. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the arguments advanced, we direct the District Magistrate concerned to pass appropriate order in the matter within four weeks from today in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the present petition stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gopal Singh