Chattisgarh High Court
Keshav Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 November, 2023
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 472 of 2023
Keshav Shukla S/o Shri Devishankar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village- Pandepur (Bhilami), Police Station-Seepat, District-
Bilaspur, (C.G.), Present Address Near Rest House, Ward No.8,
Ratanpur, Police Station and Tahsil- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Home (Jail)
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services
Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter- Prisons and Correctional Services
Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The District Magistrate Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
5. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.11.2023 Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, 2 appearing for the respondents/State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"10.1 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.3 and the application (Annexure P/2) filed by the petitioner under C.G. Prisoners leave Rule 1989 may kindly be allowed.
10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) was rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 25.05.2023, a copy of which has been filed vide Annexure P/6, against which the petitioner has preferred WP(Cr) No. 313/2023 before this Court and the same was disposed off vide order dated 26.07.2023 directing District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner as the petitioner is in jail since 15.08.2020 and the District Magistrate once again considered the prayer for parole of the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 26.07.2023 and the same was rejected by 3 the impugned order dated 15.09.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376(D) of the IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and is languishing in jail since 15.08.2020. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the office of respondent No. 3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 15.09.2023 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate would support the impugned order and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record.
7. From perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Bilaspur was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Station House officer that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is likelihood that he would commit cognizable offence, hence he rejected the application of the petitioner.
8. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on 4 05/08/2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020, the 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 SHO, without considering the relevant rules, the District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. In view of the above matter and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole.
10. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur is directed to issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days 5 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 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 of with the above observations/directions.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil