Chattisgarh High Court
Bhupendra @ Pintu Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 252 of 2022
• Bhupendra @ Pintu Thakur S/o Late Krishna Thakur Aged
About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Dongargaon, Sevtapara, Police
Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
(Prisoner No. 2679/36).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home (Jail)
Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Jail And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh The Director
General Of Prisons, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh.
4. The District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh.
5. Additional District Magistrate Rajnandgaon, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
6. Superintendent Of Police Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh.
7. Sub Divisional Officer (Police) Ambagarh Chowki, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
8. The Station House Officer Police Station Dongargaon, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For respondents/State : Shri Chitendra Singh, Panel Lawyer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 17.10.2022.
1. Heard.
2. The present petition is filed against order dated 04.02.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (CG), whereby, application for release of the petitioner on parole, has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 20.12.2016 and he is serving life sentence for the offence under Section 302 and 498-A IPC, he 2 has become entitled for benefit of release on leave under Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short 'Rules 1989'). On this basis, the application for grant of leave was filed by the petitioner, which was not allowed by the respondent authorities only because family members of the deceased and the police raised objection, whereas, counselor of the Ward has stated no objection to grant temporary leave/parole to the petitioner. It is further submitted that such ground of refusal is not found place in Rule 4(c) of the Rules 1989, therefore, rejection of parole is not in conformity of Rules 1989. Hence, leave application of the petitioner may be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the State, while referring to the reply filed by them, would submit that the application of the petitioner has been considered strictly in accordance with law and after seeking opinion from the concerned Superintendent of Police and due to objection raised by the family members of the deceased and the police, his application has been rejected, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the materials available on record.
6. Having considered the rival contentions put forth on behalf of either side, it is pertinent to mention here 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 Rules in the State of Chhattisgarh are known as 'The Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1989 deals with conditions of the leave, which reads as under:
"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 offence in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave;3
(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; and
(e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Releasing Authority if such security is demanded by the Releasing Authority."
7. If the Note appended to Rule 6(a) is taken into consideration, it clearly reflects that there is only one ground on which leave can be refused by the District Magistrate and it is only in a case where he feels that release of the petitioner is fraught with danger to the public safety and thereafter, under no other circumstances, the leave can be refused as a matter of routine without cogent reasons. Rule 6(a) and Note appended thereto reads as under:-
"6. Sanctioning Authority for first leave.- (a) If the District Magistrate, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, is satisfied that the request for grant of leave can be granted without detriment to public interest, he shall issue to the Superintendent a duly signed and sealed warrant in Form "A' to the prisoner. The District Magistrate shall enter in the warrant the number of days that will be required for the journeys by the shortest practicable route to and from the place at which during his leave the prisoner proposes to reside or if he proposes to visit more than one place, the fartherest place from the Jail which he proposed to visit.
Note.- The District Magistrate is responsible for the proper carrying out of these instructions. He may of course, consult the District Superintendent of Police on the advisability of granting the leave. The Superintendent of Police should also obtain the opinion of the Gram Panchayat of the village where the prisoner resided before conviction and send to the District Magistrate along with his report. But the responsibility for the action is that of the District Magistrate. He should use his discretion and should refuse to grant leave only in cases in which he satisfied that release is fraught with danger to the public safety. Security should be demanded only when it is really necessary, for example, when there is reasonable apprehension that the prisoner will break leave. When security is required, the District Magistrate of the place where the surety resides 4 should be asked by the releasing District Magistrate to accept the surety and not call the surety to his own headquarters. If the prisoner intends to visit another district, where his near relatives reside, the concerning Magistrate shall make necessary enquiries from the District Magistrate of that District before sanctioning the leave.
8. In the light of aforesaid principles, if the order dated 04.02.2021 is looked into along with documents filed [Annexure - P/1, P/2, P/3, Certificate dated 28.12.2020 issued by Counselor of Ward No.6, Nagar Panchayat Dongargarh (page No.16), Annexure- P/4 & P/5], it is found that as per Annexure-P/4, i.e. memo dated 10.01.2021 issued by Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Ambagarh Chouki, Distt. Rajnangaon, this is the first offence registered against the petitioner and he is not habitual offender. It has also been mentioned that there is no criminal antecedent reported against him. As per the certificate issued by the counselor, Ward No.5, Nagar Panchayat Dongargarh (page - 16), he has not raised any objection to grant temporary leave/parole to the petitioner. This fact has also been mentioned in the memo (Annexure-P/5) sent by Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon to District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon. Despite that, in the impugned order (Annexure-P/1), it has wrongly been mentioned that reputed person/counselor of the Ward has stated not to grant leave to the petitioner. This fact shows that how negligently the District Magistrate has dealt with the matter.
9. The matter relating to grant of parole had come up before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and relying upon the case of Poonam Lata vs. ML Wadhawan and Ors. (1987) 3 SCC 347 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.5
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 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 theirfamily 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.
10. 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 continue to be serving the sentence despite granting of parole under the statute, rules, jail manual or the Government 6 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."
11. Considering aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court , if we see the facts of the instant case, then it is apparent that the matter has not been properly considered by the District Magistrate and facts have been wrongly mentioned by him in the impugned order. The family members have raised their objections to grant leave to the petitioner that the petitioner may again quarrel with them and on that basis the police authorities have also raised objection, but the same could not be used as an absolute barrier to grant leave to the petitioner, which is the right created under Section 4 & 6 of the Rules, 1989, as has been stated in preceding paragraphs. Rules of 1989 have been enacted with certain object, therefore, application for grant of parole should be considered bearing in mind those objects. By rejection of such application on any of the ground, which is not reasonable, the object of framing aforesaid Rule would be frustrated. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole as per Rules of 1989.
12. Accordingly, the District Magistrate is directed to issue necessary release order granting leave / parole 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. The District Magistrate while allowing the application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may also seek security as provided in Section 4 (e) of the Rules, 1989.
13. In the result, the petition stands disposed of with the above observation/direction.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini