Chattisgarh High Court
Omnarayan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 November, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 872 of 2022
• Omnarayan S/o Ramanand Verma, Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village Ghutheli, P.S. Pathariya District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
Through Daneshvari W/o Vikram Rajput, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village Ghutheli, P.S. Pathariya,, District : Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its, Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Jail And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, The Director
General Prisons, Jail Road Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur,, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. The District Magistrate, Mungeli,, District : Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh
5. The Superintendent Of Police Mungeli, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Sunil Pillai, Advocate For respondents/State : Smt. M Asha, Panel Lawyer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 04.11.2022.
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking direction to be issued to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on subsequent leave/parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Sessions Court, Mungeli and is serving imprisonment for life. He is in jail since 2017. It is further submitted that on 26.3.2021, the petitioner was granted 2 parole for 14 days and after completion of the parole, he returned to jail on 08.4.2021. However, the jail authorities did not permit him to enter into the jail as he was not having test report of Covid-19. Thereafter the petitioner reported on the next day i.e. on 09.4.2021 with Covid-19 negative test report and he was permitted to enter into the jail. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that now the petitioner is entitled for second leave/parole as more than 1 ½ years has been passed after availing the first leave/parole by him and as per sub clause 3(iii) of Section 31-A of the Prisoners Act, 1900, the petitioner is entitled for second leave/parole. Therefore, he has prayed to process his application for second leave/parole before respondent No.3, but the same is not being processed by the jail authorities. Hence, this petition may be disposed of by directing the jail authorities to process his application for grant of second leave/parole.
4. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to allow such limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.
6. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is now entitled for second leave/parole but despite request made by the petitioner, his application is not being processed, whereas if the petitioner is entitled for second leave/parole, then the jail authorities are obliged to process his application. Section 31-A (3)(iii) of the Prisoner's Act, 1900 reads thus:
"31-A. Grant of leave to Prisoners.--
(1) XXX XXX XXX
(2) XXX XXX XXX
(3) Leave shall not be admissible to a prisoner duringa year under sub-section (1):--
(i) XXX XXX XXX
(ii) XXX XXX XXX
3
(iii) unless a period of three months has elapsed since the expiration of leave last availed of during the year and the commencement of the leave applied for."
7. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, after availing last leave/parole, the petitioner was admitted in the jail on 09.4.2021. Thus, according to the aforesaid Rules, after 90 days, he is entitled to seek second leave/parole, therefore, the jail authorities are required to process his application for grant of second temporary leave/parole and send the same to respondent No.2, who is said to be the competent authority for granting subsequent leave under Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Rules 1989.
8. In view of the above, it is directed to respondent No.3 to process the application of the petitioner for grant of second temporary leave/parole and after due process, it be sent to respondent No.2 for proper consideration and pass the order in accordance with law/Rules. It is further observed that aforesaid process and consideration of the application of the petitioner be done within a period of one month from production of copy of this order.
9. With aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is disposed of finally.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini