Gujarat High Court
Ahemadhusen Valimahammad Saiyed vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1952/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1952 of 2025
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1952 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3648 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3873 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6773 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8200 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8530 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9627 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10872 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10884 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10377 of 2025
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10377 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4101 of 2025
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4101 of 2025
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3873 of 2025
==========================================================
AHEMADHUSEN VALIMAHAMMAD SAIYED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMANT B RAVAL(3491) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH MS. SHRUTI PATHAK
AND MR. HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 08/08/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:01:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1952/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
1) RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.
2) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for respective parties, present petitions are taken up for final hearing today.
3) By way of present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order/s passed by the Department of Home, Government of Gujarat, whereby the petitioners have been denied remission under Section 432 of the CrPC.
4) Pursuant to the earlier directions, today Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Mr. Mayursinh Vaghela has remained present in the Court.
5) At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions from Deputy Secretary, Home Department, has fairly submitted that as per the directions issued by this Court, order/s of remission or refusal of remission have been passed following the directions given by this Court and time to time directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, without entering into merit of the matters, the State Authority once again is ready and willing to reconsider the matters on merit, as expeditiously as possible.
6) Considering the conduct of the petitioners and their involvement in serious offence, learned APP has opposed the present petitions on the ground that they are absconders for long time and apprehended by the police and hence, requested not to release them on parole leave.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:01:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1952/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
7) From the record of these petitions, it appears that remission orders passed without assigning any reason and general order which does not reflect application of mind and proper consideration of case of convicts have been passed by the authority without verifying the facts of each case. In view of the above, prima facie, it appears that the respondent authority has not considered the application/s filed by the present petitioner/s in a fair manner and not properly assessed the material and the opinion produced before the authority. Same time, as this Court is unable to sit in appeal or review the decision of the respondent Authority including the calculation of days and hence, the impugned order/s passed by the Authority deserve to be quashed and set aside and the matters are required to be remitted back to the respondent Authority to decide afresh, in light of prevailing government policy and Resolutions extending benefit of remission as well as the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawas @ Mulanavas Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2024 INSC 215;
(a) the number of deceased who are victims of that crime and their age and gender;
(b) the nature of injuries including sexual assault if any;
(c) the motive for which the offence was committed;
(d) whether the offence was committed when the convict was on bail in another case;
(e) the premeditated nature of the offence;
(f) the relationship between the offender and the victim;
(g) the abuse of trust if any; (h) the criminal antecedents; and whether the convict, if released, would be a menace to the society.
Some of the positive factors have been, (1) age of the convict; (2) the probability of reformation of convict; (3) the convict not Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:01:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1952/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined being a professional killer; (4) the socio-economic condition of the accused; (5) the composition of the family of the accused and (6) conduct expressing remorse."
8) Herein, as discussed above, the report of Jail Advisory Board is ambiguous and there is nothing in the said report which clearly indicate about the conduct and relevant criteria to consider the applications for remission.
9) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Department of Home, Government of Gujarat, are hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted to the concerned authority for fresh consideration, which shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.
10)Accordingly, present petitions and allied applications stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:01:59 IST 2025