High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11046-DB NAFR ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.03.07 10:19:06 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 83 of 2025 Bhanupratap Banjare S/o Bahulal Banjare Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dehri, Police Chowki Devkar, P.S. Saja, District- Bemetara ( C.G. ). versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, ( C.G. ). 2 - Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Durg, District- Durg ( C.G. ). 3 - Collector District- Bemetara ( C.G. ). 4 - Superintendent of Police, District- Bemetara ( C.G. ). 5 - Out Post Incharge Police Chowki Devkar, District- Bemetara ( C.G. ). (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For Respondents/State :Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. ...Respondents Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 06.03 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Sweksha Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State. 2 2. When the case was called out for hearing on 12.02.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Bemetara was directed to file his personal affidavit with regard to the fact that on what basis, release of the present petitioner is objected. 3. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 12.02.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Bemetara has filed his personal affidavit on 25.02.2025, relevant portion of which, reads as follows :- “3. That, in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's direction dated 12.02.2025, it is humbly submitted that, the petitioner was convicted by the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Sessions Case No. 09/2022 whereby, the learned Court has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine 1 month additional Rigorous Imprisonment. Against the same, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 1720/2022 before the Hon'ble Court and by the order dated 22.01.2025, the same was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. That, it is humbly submitted that, the 3 petitioner is in Jail since 16.11.2021, therefore, an application for grant of ordinary leave was made by the petitioner before the Respondent No. 2 for grant of leave on parole, which was forwarded to the Respondent No. 3 Collector, District Bemetara for further necessary action. Thereafter, after considering all the aspects of the matter and the materials available on record, the Respondent No. 3 Collector, Bemetara has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that, the Respondent No. 4/Superintendent of Police, Bemetara and the Respondent No. 5/Incharge Station House Officer, Police Outpost Devkar, District Bemetara have opined that, the petitioner should not be released on parole. 5. That, it is humbly submitted that, thereafter, the concerned Incharge Station House Officer, Police Outpost Devkar, District Bemetara have recorded the statements of the Sarpanch Representative Idu Mohammad of Gram Panchayat Dehari, reputed person Arti Das Manikpuri and Gram Patel Sewak Ram Sinha wherein, they have categorically 4 stated that, the prisoner is a quarrelsome person and there is resentment in the Village against him and have given their separate written opinions in which, they have objected to his release. Copies of the relevant statements of the villagers of Village Dehari, are being annexed collectively herewith as ANNEXURE R/A for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 6. That, it is humbly submitted that, on due investigation regarding the temporary release of the prisoner, it was found on the statements of the witnesses that, there is a lot of anger in the village due to the heinous crime like murder committed by the prisoner and they are scared of him and the prisoner is a quarrelsome person, so if the prisoner is released on parole, then the peace of the village can be disturbed and an unpleasant incident can happen, therefore, it has been written in the report by the concerned Incharge Station House Officer, Police Outpost Devkar to not release the prisoner on parole.” 5 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 29.10.2024 (P-1) passed by the office of respondent no.3 and direct the respondent no.3 to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him for a period of 14 days. ii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 5. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bemetara (C.G.) vide order dated 19.09.2024 on the statements of the Sarpanch Representative Idu Mohammad of Gram Panchayat Dehari, reputed person Arti Das Manikpuri and Gram Patel Sewak Ram Sinha wherein, they have categorically stated that, the prisoner is a quarrelsome person and there is resentment in the Village against him and have given their separate written opinions in which, they have objected to his release. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), vide judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed by 6 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.09/2022 and is languishing in jail since 16.11.2021. 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 25.10.2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 9. From perusal of the impugned order shows that the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Bemetara was swaying with the statements of the Sarpanch Representative Idu Mohammad of Gram Panchayat Dehari, reputed person Arti Das Manikpuri and Gram Patel Sewak Ram Sinha wherein, they have categorically stated that, the prisoner is a quarrelsome person and there is resentment in the Village against him and have given their separate written opinions in which, they have objected to his release as well as there is likelihood that he would commit cognizable offence, hence he rejected the application of the petitioner. 7 10. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP 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…” 9. In the present case also merely on the basis of the vague report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, without considering the relevant rules, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. In view of the above matter and in view of 8 the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bemetara (Annexure-P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Bemetara (C.G.) is directed to verify the surety submitted by the petitioner and issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days and the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on completion of 14 days, at 11.00 a.m. positively. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bemetara, while allowing the application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may also seek surety of one family member of the petitioner as provided in Section 4(e) of the Rules, 1989 and may direct the petitioner to mark his presence before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bemetara (C.G.) on each day during that period. 11. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu