1 2025:CGHC:54530-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 569 of 2025 Shakharam Sahu S/o Bhaiyaram Sahu Aged About 75 Years Resident of Village- Newari P.S. Suhela District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (In Jail) Through- Ghanaram Sahu S/o Shakharam Sahu, Residence Of Village - Newari, P.S. Suhela District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Police Affairs, Police Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Superintendent of Central Jail Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.10 17:03:11 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ against the concern authority to give his opinion/proposal in the application of petitioners after calling the record of Session Trial No. 47 of 2008 which tagged along with Criminal Revision No. 344 of 2014, pending before this Hon’ble Court within stipulated period. Or The Hon’ble High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ against the Registry of High Court of Chhattisgarh for transmit the record of the Session Trial No. 47 of 2008 which is attracted with the Cr.R. No. 344 of 2008 to the trial Court for giving the opinion in the petitioners application for rumination in jail sentence. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 3. Upon perusal of the pleadings and the reliefs sought in the present petition, it transpires that in relief clause No. 10.2, the last line 3 contains a typographical error wherein the words “application for rumination” have been used instead of “application for remission.” This error reflects that the prayer has been drafted in a casual and unsatisfactory manner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file a fresh petition incorporating an appropriate and precise prayer. 5. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection to the said request. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost before the Registry of this Court. The petitioner shall produce the receipt of such deposit at the time of filing the fresh petition, if any. The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Government Disabled College, Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan