1 2025:CGHC:45766-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 494 of 2025 Madvi Joga S/o Madvi Bheema, aged about 31 years, Convicted Prisoner No. 6173/2025 R/o Village Molasnar, Markapara, Police Station Bhansi, District- South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs (Jail) Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Upper Chief Secretary Department of Jail Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Director General Jail and Correctional Services Jail Headquarter Sector 19 Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent of Jail Central Jail Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 22-04-2025 passed by Respondent no.2 /and/20-05-2025 passed by Respondent No.3 (Annexure P/1.) and kindly grant the remission prescribed under section 473 of the BNSS/432(2) of the Cr.P.C. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent's authority to proceed the petitioner's matter for grant of remission under section 432(2) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and take decision accordingly afresh for grant of remission to the petitioner within stipulated time and disposed off the petition with that directions as passed in similar matter by this Hon'ble Court in WP(Cr.)No. 445/2025 Deepan Singh Versus State, order dated 05-08- 2025 ANNEXURE P/5. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2024 passed in WPCR No. 189 of 2024 (Shameem @ Shameeuddin vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby this Court has held as under:- “16. Even this Court, in a number of cases, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sangeet v. 3 State of Haryana {AIR 2013 SC 447}, Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab {2013 Cri.L.J. 1559}, Laxman Naskar v. Union of India {(2000) 2 SCC 595}, Union of India v. Sriharan {(2016) 7 SCC 1} and Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh {AIR 2022 SC 2017} had directed remitted the matter back to the State to decide the case of the petitioners therein and to consider the matter in light of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra). 17. The orders passed by the respondent authorities rejecting the application of the petitioners for grant of remission {09.04.2024 (Annexure P/6) in WPCr No. 189/2024 which was communicated to the wife of the petitioner vide communication dated 01.05.2024} {18.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) in WPCr No. 291/2024} {05.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) in WPCr No. 328/2024} are non-speaking and have been passed without application of mind and without taking into consideration the ratio laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court in the cases (supra), and as such, they are set aside. 18. Consequently, the matters are remitted to the State Government to decide the application of the petitioners for remission afresh. The State Government will call for the opinion of the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge / Sessions Judge afresh, who will provide his opinion on the petitioners’ application within one month from the date of requisition as per Laxman Naskar (supra) and thereafter, the State Government will decide petitioner's application within two month from the date of receipt of opinion from learned Judge in light of the 4 decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) and also the observations made herein. 19. All the petitions accordingly stands allowed.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPCR No. 189 of 2024 (Shameem @ Shameeuddin vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WPCR No. 189 of 2024, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPCR No. 189 of 2024. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 11.09.2024 passed in WPCR No. 189 of 2024 (Shameem @ Shameeuddin vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra