Chattisgarh High Court
Samsuddein Ansari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 February, 2022
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No.390 of 2021
Order Reserved on : 25.01.2022
Order Delivered on : 18.02.2022
Samsuddin Ansari, S/o Late Jakira Ansari, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Village Bhagwatpur, Post Durgapur, Police Station Shankargarh,
District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Collector And District Magistrate District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Balrampur Ramanujganj,
Chhattisgarh
4. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambikapur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh
5. The Station House Officer, Police Station Shankargarh, District
Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondents Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, PL Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey C A V Order Proceeding through Video Conferencing
1. The present petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.03.2021 2 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.), whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of leave (parole) under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule, 1989 has been rejected.
2. The petitioner is a prisoner, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506 (B), 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act, and as on 03.03.2021, the petitioner had already served 4 years and 11 months and 9 days jail sentence as per report of the respondent No.4. The petitioner has made an application for grant of leave (parole) under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989, but the said application has been rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 17.03.2021. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved with the said order, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and against the law, as the application has not been considered on the touchstone of the Rules. The petitioner fulfills all the conditions and eligibility criteria required for grant of leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989 and he is entitled to be released on parole. It is next contended that there is no clinching material available on record to show that the release of the petitioner on leave is fraught with any danger to public safety, therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petition be allowed. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court on 18.11.2016 in WPCR No.29/2016, parties being Rakesh Shende 3 Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
4. Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and submit that the report of Superintendent of Police is against the petitioner, wherein the victim/complainant has made objection in granting bail (parole) to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed, as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. It is clear from the material available on record that the petitioner has filed an application before the respondent No.4 for grant of parole. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 recorded the statement of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhagwatpur and other persons and submitted report thereof before the respondent No.3. On 15.03.2021 (Annexure-P/5), the respondent No.3 wrote a letter to the respondent No.2 stating that though the villagers have no objection in granting parole to the petitioner, but the victim has made objection in granting the same to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide the impugned order (Annexure-P/1), the petitioner's application for grant of parole has been rejected by the respondent No.2.
7. This Court in the matter of Rakesh Shende (supra) has held in paras 22 & 23 as under:-
"22. As noticed herein above, the power of parole has been conferred by the rules to the District Magistrate and the post of District Magistrate is manned in the State of Chhattisgarh by a member of Indian Administrative Service. Therefore, the District Magistrate is required to exercise the power to consider the 4 application for grant of parole. He has to take into consideration the object and need to grant parole to the convicted prisoners by applying their mind and come to a conclusion judiciously. The order passed by the District Magistrate in the instant case would show the complete non-application of mind, as by a cyclostyle order only name and number of prisoner has been inserted and it has been signed by the Additional District Magistrate. The manner in which the order has been passed by the District Magistrate in a mechanical manner is suggestive of betrayal of the confidence which the rule making authority reposed in the District Magistrate in conferring upon him to exercise the power to grant parole.
23. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the following binding observation made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab & Others1 "16..In the system of Indian democratic governance as contemplated by the Constitution, senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to mortgage there own discretion, volition and decision making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. The conduct Rules of Central Government Services command the civil servants to maintain at tall times absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. No government servant shall in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of power conferred on him act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior..."
10. In the report prepared by the respondent No.4 vide Annexure-
P/4, it has been informed that the petitioner as on 03.03.2021 has served 4 years, 11 months and 9 days jail sentence and his conduct in the jail is good and previously the convict has been granted parole only for one occasion, thus as on date the petitioner has served more than 5 years 10 months approx jail sentence and his conduct has also been reported to be good, therefore, considering the said fact as well as the 1 (2001) 6 SCC 260 5 observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trilochan Das (Supra), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is accordingly hereby quashed. It is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner to grant him the privilege of release/parole in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Trilochan Das (Supra) and this Court in the matter of Rakesh Shinde (Supra) within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicted herein-
above. No order as to cost (s).
Sd/-
Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala