Chattisgarh High Court
Manglavat Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 August, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2024:CGHC:30606-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 270 of 2024
1 - Manglavat Bai W/o Radhe Shyam Kurre Aged About 56 Years Convict No.
3325/16, R/o Village Mudpar, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3 - District Magistrate Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarnangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)
4 - Superintendent Of Police Distt. - Sarnangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.08.2024 Heard Shri Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned GA, appearing for the respondents/State.
Wpcr 270 of 2024 2
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:-
"(i) Call for entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.
(ii) Quash the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.3 and order may kindly be passed for temporary release/parole of the petitioner for 14 days.
(iii) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. Application for grant of leave (parole) filed by the petitioner herein has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (CG) vide impugned order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P1) on the ground that there is no favourable recommendation in favour of the petitioner for his release, more than that, sureties have also denied to take surety of the petitioner, and the village Panchayat also not recommended for the leave. As there is likelihood of breach of peace in the society, application of parole has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is prisoner No.3325/16 in Central Jail, Raipur, where he is undergoing his jail sentence awarded vide judgment dated 15.11.2022, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 436/149, 435/149, 201/149, 307/149 of the IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and to pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- with default Wpcr 270 of 2024 3 stipulation. Petitioner is in jail since 18.12.2017 to 12.10.2018 under trial prisoner, and after confirmation of the conviction and sentence, till now. She has served more than 2 years six months in Central Jail, Raipur. She has not been granted a single leave during her sentence which is straight away violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent-3 summarily, without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's leave Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules, 1989'), as well as the Rules 6, 9, 11 and 12 of the Rules, 1989. Hence the order passed by respondent-3 dated 21.05.2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh was swaying with the opinion of the concerned local authorities, that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is likelihood that he would commit cognizable offence. Further, that no one is ready to take surety of the petitioner, hence he rejected the application filed by the petitioner.
6. On 05.08.2024, this Court has directed the petitioner to file details of sureties which he wishes to furnish for releasing the petitioner on parole. In compliance of the said order, petitioner has submitted an additional affidavit dated 07.08.2024, with details of the surety- Jageshar, Wpcr 270 of 2024 4 s/o Sadhuram, r/o Mudpar, Tahsil Bilaigarh for her release on parole for 14 days.
7. Recently in the matter of Shor Vs State of UP decided on 05.08.2020 in WPCR-58 of 2020, 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, and it is opined as under:
"....Merely repeating of 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 person......."
8. In the instant case also merely on the basis of the vague report of the concerned local authorities, without considering the relevant rules, the District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh has rejected the application of Wpcr 270 of 2024 5 the petitioner. Petitioner has now, filed an additional affidavit for her release on parole.
9. In view of above, and in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Annexure P1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh is directed to verify the surety submitted by the petitioner and issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for fourteen days and the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on completion of 14 days, at 11 am 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 observation/direction.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma