Chattisgarh High Court
Mohhd. Israr Khan @ Raja vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 August, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2024:CGHC:28737-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 272 of 2024
1. Mohhd. Israr Khan @ Raja S/o Shri Tajjudin Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward
No. 10, Almuddinpara, P. S. Ramanujganj District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector Ramanujganj Balrampur District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh.
3. The Superintendent Of Police Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh.
4. Jail Superintendent Central Jail Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02/08/2024 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General. appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following 2 relief(s):
"(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to quash the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the respondent No.02, in the ends of justice;
(ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on temporary leave as early as possible for a period as prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989;
(iii) That, any other relief deemed to be fit sought by the Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice for the petitioner."
3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Balrampur District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh vide order dated 07-06-2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner's release is likely to lead quarrel and dispute by the petitioner with the victim's family and petitioner is likely to commit cognizable offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Section 302, 363, 364A, 34, 120B of Indian Penal Code and lodged in Ambikapur Central Jail. He has spent about 10 years in imprisonment. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.2 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in short 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 07- 3 06-2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record.
7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Balrampur District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police 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. In the matter of Shor v. State of U.P. decided on 05-08-2020 in WP(Cr.) No.58/2020, the 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.
"....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...."
4
9. In the instant case also merely on the basis of the vague report of the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Balrampur District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh dated 07-06-2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole.
10. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Balrampur District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh is directed to issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days 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 off with the above Digitally observations/directions.
signed by
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Ravi Mandavi