Chattisgarh High Court
Ruma Majumdar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 February, 2022
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 126 of 2022
Ruma Majumdar, W/o Taapas @ Supriyo, Aged About 35
Years, Prisoner No. 131/57 R/o Village Staff Quarter Koriya
Coalary P.S. Chirmiri District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Through
Deepa Chakrawarty W/o Deepak Chakrawarty, Aged 55
Years, R/o Village Ajirma P.S. & Tehsil Jainagar, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur
(Chhattisgarh).
2. Collector/ District Magistrate Koriya Baikunthpur, District
Koriya Chhattisgarh.
3. Superintendent of Police, Koriya Baikunthpur District Koriya
Chhattisgarh.
4. Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Ambikapur District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Adv.
For State : Shri Sushil Sahu, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Order on Board 02.02.2022 Proceedings through video conferencing.
1. Heard.
2. The present petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the District Magistrate of District- Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) whereby the application filed by the 2 petitioner under Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989 for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected.
3. The petitioner is a prisoner who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, 34 of the IPC and has been sentenced for Life Imprisonment and is languishing in jail for about 7 years. She made an application for grant of leave under Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989 but the said application was rejected by the District Magistrate of District- Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) vide order dated 24.09.2021. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved against the said order, the instant writ petition has been filed.
4. Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is malafide, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law as the application has not been considered in touchstone of the Rules. As the petitioner fulfills all conditions and eligibility required for grant of leave under Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989, she is entitled to be released on parole. It is next contended that petitioner is in jail for about 7 years and there is no material available on record to show that the release of the petitioner on leave is fraught with danger to public safety, therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. In support of his argument, learned counsel 3 for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Rakesh Shende Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. passed in WPCR No. 29/2016 by this Court.
5. Mr. Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/Respondents has supported the impugned order and denied all the adverse allegations made by the petitioner.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is clear from the material available on record that the petitioner has filed application before the District Magistrate of District- Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) and the learned District Magistrate called a report from Superintendent of Police, District- Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.).
8. The Superintendent of Police has submitted the report whereby he has objected the release of the petitioner based on recommendation of the concerned Station House Officer. Relying upon the said report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and the objection of the victim, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order for not releasing the petitioner on leave.
9. This Court in the matter of Rakesh Shende Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others in Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 29/2016 vide order dated 18.11.2016 held in paras 22 & 23 as under:-
4
"22. As noticed herein above, the power of parole has been conferred by the rules to the District Magistrate and the post of District Magistrate is manned in the State of Chhattisgarh by a member of Indian Administrative Service. Therefore, the District Magistrate is required to exercise the power to consider the application for grant of parole. He has to take into consideration the object and need to grant parole to the convicted prisoners by applying their mind and come to a conclusion judiciously. The order passed by the District Magistrate in the instant case would show the complete non-application of mind, as by a cyclostyle order only name and number of prisoner has been inserted and it has been signed by the Additional District Magistrate. The manner in which the order has been passed by the District Magistrate in a mechanical manner is suggestive of betrayal of the confidence which the rule making authority reposed in the District Magistrate in conferring upon him to exercise the power to grant parole.
23. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the following binding observation made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab & Others1 "16. In the system of Indian democratic governance as contemplated by the Constitution, senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to mortgage there own discretion, volition and decision making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. The conduct Rules of Central Government Services command the civil servants to maintain at tall times absolute integrity and 1 (2001) 6 SCC 260 5 devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. No government servant shall in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of power conferred on him act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior..."
10. Looking to the principles and observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trilochan Das(Supra), I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the District Magistrate (Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is accordingly quashed. It is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner to grant him the privilege of release/parole in accordance with law and principles laid down in the matter of Rakesh Shinde (Supra) & Trilochan Das (Supra) within forty five days from the date of production of a copy of this order.
11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi/-
6