Chattisgarh High Court
Ramchandra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 July, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 255 of 2024
• Ramchandra S/o Shri Bagas Ram Satnami, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Madmada, Post Bamhani, P.S. Kawardha,
District Kabirdham (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Department of
Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur
(C.G.)
2. Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Durg, District Durg
(C.G.)
3. Collector, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
4. Superintendent of Police, Kawardha, District Kabirdham
(C.G.)
5. Station House Officer, Charbhanta, P.S. Kawardha, District
Kabirdham (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29-07-2024 Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. -2- Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 11.03.2024 (P-1) passed by the office of respondent no.3 and direct the respondent no.3 to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him for a period of 14 days.
(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."
3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the respondent No.3 Collector-cum District Magistrate, Kabirdham (C.G.) vide order dated 11-03-2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the offence committed by the petitioner was of serious nature, there is likelihood of his absconding and petitioner's release would likely to affect public security and tranquility.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted in Session Trial No.168/1993 on 24-01-1996 under Section 302/34 and 201 of the IPC. The petitioner has spent for about 10 years and 6 months in -3- jail since 12-04-1993. He was in jail since 12-04-1993 to 07- 05-1993 as under trial prisoner, 24-01-1996 to 09-05-1996 and thereafter from 21-10-2016 till today and has not been released on parole or bail till date and he has not been granted a single leave during his sentence which is straight away violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The criminal appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in short 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 11-03-2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record.
7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Collector-cum District Magistrate, Kabirdham was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police that if the -4- petitioner is released on parole, there is likelihood that he would commit cognizable offence, hence he rejected the application of the petitioner.
8. In the matter of Shor v. State of U.P. decided on 05-08- 2020 in WP(Cr.) No.58/2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the benefit of parole to those whose application was rejected on the ground that the crime is heinous and release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society.
"....Merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2 of the United Provinces Prisoners Release on Prohibition Act, 1938. Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner is not "incapacitated" from committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life is released from prison...."
9. In the instant case also merely on the basis of the vague report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, without considering the relevant rules, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. In view of the above matter and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the -5- impugned order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kabirdham dated 11-03-2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole.
10. Accordingly, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) is directed to issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days from the date of his release on leave/parole and the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on after completion of the aforesaid period positively. The Collector- cum-District Magistrate while allowing the application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may also seek surety as provided in Section 4 (e) of the Rules, 1989.
11. In the result, the present petition stands disposed off with the above observations/directions.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil