Chattisgarh High Court
Trinath Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 February, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 415 of 2021
Trinath Baghel S/o Ankur Baghel Aged About 30 Years Lodged
In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---
Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of
Home, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2. Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3. Senior Superintendent of Police Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
4. District Magistrate Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Additional District Magistrate Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
6. Thana In-Charge Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents
For the Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Dy. Advocate Gen. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 28 .02.2022
1. The present petition is against the order dated 27.02.2021 whereby the application to release the applicant on parole of 10 days has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate, Raipur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is lodged in jail since 08.03.2015 and is entitled to get parole as per the C.G. Prisoners leave Rules, 1989. It is contended that having entitled to be released on parole, he filed an application for parole of 2 10 days which was approved by the Superintendent of Jail Raipur and on 30.09.2020 the application was forwarded to the District Magistrate Raipur. The District Magistrate on the basis of statements recorded of the family members of victim has rejected the application on 27.02.2021. It is contended that the main rejection was the basis of the statement recorded of the mother and father of deceased whose son was murdered by the petitioner and others. It is further contended that such refusal does not find place in Rule 4(C ) of the C.G. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.
3. In the reply of State, it is stated that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence u/s 302 of IPC, therefore, having raised the objection by the family members of the victim, the City Superintendent of Police agreed with the report of Incharge of Police Station Saraswati Nagar Raipur and opined that it would not be appropriate to release the petitioner on parole. Consequently, the order of rejection for grant of parole for 10 days was passed by the Addl. District Magistrate based on the opinion given by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur,
4. Having considered the rival contentions put forth on behalf of either side what is relevant at this juncture is that the State Government has enacted specific rules in respect of grant of leave to the prisoners in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900. The said Rules in the State of Chhattisgarh are known as 'The Chhattisgarh Prisoner's 3 Leave Rules, 1989'. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 deals with the conditions of leave. For ready reference the said clause is reproduced herein below :
"4. Conditions of Leave.- The prisoners shall be granted leave under sub-section (1) of Section 31-A of the Act on the following conditions, namely :-
(a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31- A of the Act;
(b) He has not committed any offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave;
(c) The releasing authority must be satisfied that the leave may be granted without detriment to the public interest;
(d) He gives in writing to the Releasing Authority the place or places which he intends to visit during the period of his leave and undertake not to visit any other place during such period without obtaining prior permission of the Releasing Authority in that behalf;
(e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Releasing Authority if such security is demanded by the Releasing Authority."
5. If we take into consideration the Note attached to Rule 6(a) it clearly reflects that there is only one ground on which leave can be refused by the District Magistrate and it is only in case where he is satisfied that the release of the prisoner is fraught with danger to the public safety and under no other circumstances can the leave be refused as a matter of routine without cogent reasons. Further perusal of Rule 6 also clearly depicts that before the District Magistrate takes a decision on the application for grant of temporary leave he has to consult the District Superintendent of Police who in turn has to obtain the opinion of the Gram Panchayat of the village where the prisoner resides.
4
6. In Dadu alias Tulsidas Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (8) SCC 437, the Supreme Court held as under :
"6. Parole is not a suspension of sentence. The convict continues to be serving the sentence despite granting of parole under the statute, rules, jail manual or the Government Orders. "Parole" means the release of a prisoner temporarily for a special purpose before the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour and return to jail. It is a release from jail, prison or other internment after actually being in jail serving part of sentence
7. Similar matter had come up before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2002 and relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jeevan Singh Verma Vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2002 (1) M.P.L.J. 347, Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra, as he then was, while deciding the case after referring to the provisions of the Prisoners Act held as under :
"7. Now the question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner should be granted the benefit of parole or temporary release. In this context I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Inder Singh and Anr. v. The State (Delhi Administration) 1978 SCC (Cri) 564 wherein their Lordships emphasized on rehabilitation and quoted a passage from Lewis Moore with approval. The said passage reads as under :
"You cannot rehabilitate a man through brutality and disrespect. Regardless of the crime a man may commit, he still is a human being and has feelings. And the main reason most inmates in prison today disrespect their keepers, is because they themselves (the inmates) are disrespected and are not treated like human beings. I myself have witnessed brutal attacks upon inmates and have suffered a few myself, if he becomes violent. But many a time this 5 restraining has turned into a brutal beating. Does this type of treatment bring about respect and rehabilitation? No.! It only instills hostility and causes alienation toward the prison officials from the inmate or inmates involved.
If you treat a man like an animal, then you must expect him to act like one. For every action, there is reaction. This is only human nature. And in order for an inmate to act like a human being, you must treat him as such. Treating him like an animal will only get negative results from him."
In the aforesaid case the Apex Court laid emphasis on the concept of 'Karuna' and directed that parole should be allowed to the convicts if they show responsibility and trustworthiness. To quote-
" Parole will be allowed to them so that their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up."
Thus parole has been treated as a curative strategy keeping in view the human dignity which is the quintessence of Article 21 of the Constitution.
8. Here in the instant case, the primary ground for rejection of parole was based on the objections raised by the mother and father of the deceased wherein the statements would show that both the mother and father objected to parole and expressed their opinion not to release the petitioner on parole. Apart from this document, no objection given by one Prakash Jagat, Who is Councilor of Ward No.23 wherein the family of accused resides, has been filed. He has given an undertaking that if the petitioner is released on parole, he would lead a normal life and would not commit any criminal act. Another undertaking has been given by a relative of the petitioner namely Jeturam who stands as a surety that if the petitioner is released he shall not commit any further 6 offence.
9. In such facts situation, only because the objection has been made by the relatives of the victim, the same cannot be used as a barrier to get leave which is a right created under section 4 & 6 of the Rules 1983. The order of the District Magistrate is also primarily based on the ground that the objection has been raised by the family members of the victim, therefore, the parole application has been rejected.
10. The rules of 1989 have been enacted with certain object and rejection on any ground which is not reasonable, the object would be shelved under the circumstances if the rejection of leave is upheld. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole as per Rules of 1989.
11. Accordingly, the District Magistrate is directed to issue necessary release order granting leave to the petitioner for the period applied for within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
12. In the result, the petition stands disposed of with the above observation/direction.
Sd/-
GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao