1 - Dhobilal Mouwar S/o Anjor Singh Mouwar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Home
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9778-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 114 of 2025 1 - Dhobilal Mouwar S/o Anjor Singh Mouwar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Banipathar, Police Station And Tahsil- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Home ( Jail ), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). 2 - Director General ( Prisoner ), Jail And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). 3 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur ( C.G. ). 4 - Collector/ District Magistrate Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 5 - Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27/02/2025 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records form respondents pertaining to petitioner for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him in the application for 42 days leave. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the respondent No.4/the District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh(C.G.) vide order dated 25.09.2024 on the recommendation of the concerned 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 he is likely to commit cognizable offence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in the Central Jail, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) since 09.01.2022. He has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 27/2022 vide judgment dated 16.02.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 10/2022 registered at Police Station- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine amounting to Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months. The petitioner is in jail since 09.01.2022 and till the petitioner has not been granted leave on parole by the respondent authorities. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.4 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 3 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.4 dated 25.09.2024 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. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. In order to decide the petitioner's application, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions contained in Rule, 1989 which state 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 offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave; (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. 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 4 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 is 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 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 District Magistrate shall make necessary enquiries from the District Magistrate of that District before sanctioning the leave. (b) If the District Magistrate considers that the grant of leave to the prisoner is undesirable in the public interest, he shall intimate his opinion to the Superintendent, who shall inform the prisoner that his request has been rejected. 9. Conditions for release on leave – After satisfaction regarding prisoner's eligibility for leave, Competent Authority shall release such prisoner on leave on the following conditions :- (1) During the period of his leave, he shall not go to any place other than those places which have been mentioned in his leave application. (2) During his leave he shall neither commit any crime nor involve in any such act that may have its bearing on public interest. (3) After spending his leave he shall present himself at the Jail from where he was released, but in the event of accident, disease, natural calamity, such prisoner can 5 surrender himself at any other nearest Police Station with proper ground. Note :- Provided that no prisoner shall claim leave as a right for leave granted under these rules.] 11. Arrest of a prisoner in event of breach of conditions.– (1) If any prisoner does not present himself on the evening of fixed date of his return, he shall be treated as prisoner at large and an FIR shall be registered against him at the Police Station in whose jurisdiction concerning jail (where prisoner was expected to surrender) is situated, and concerned Station House Officer shall put up challan against escaped prisoner. Station House Officer shall initiate necessary actions as per provisions contained in Sections 82 and 83 of Criminal Procedure Code and information regarding such actions shall be sent to Jail Superintendent by him. (2) If negligence regarding registering the FIR in case of such offence has been shown by police in spite of having received information from Superintendent of Jail under Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989, Police Superintendent shall inform Inspector General of Prisons after registration of such crime of the concerned Police Officer under Section 221 of Criminal Procedure Code. (3) In the event of escape of prisoner during the period of leave, case shall be registered against the guarantor at concerned Police Station for abetment. (4) In the event of escape of prisoner during leave Jail Superintendent shall submit application before the Court of Tahsildar for initiating actions regarding forfeiture of his security as well as attachment of guarantor’s assets. On this application, Tahsil Court shall take necessary actions for attachment of assets. 12. Penalty for overstay.–If the prisoner returns to the jail of his own accord after the date fixed for his return he shall be admitted to the jail and the prisoner's return and the reason for the delay shall be reported immediately to the District Magistrate of the district in which the jail is situated, for his orders where the prisoner should be prosecuted. If it is not considered to prosecute, the Superintendent should hold an enquiry and may for good and sufficient reasons, award one of the following punishments:– (a) Formal Warning. 6 (b) Forfeiture for a period not exceeding 3 months privileges of interview, receiving and sending letters. (c) Degradation from higher to lower grade. (d) Forfeiture of 5 days remission for each day’s overstayal on leave which shall not exceed total period of his sentence inclusive of unexpired period of sentence. 7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Raigarh was swaying with the opinion of the concerned 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. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinunder for ready reference: “….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 instant case also merely on the basis of the vague report of the concerned 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, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 7 10. Accordingly, the respondent No.4/the District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh 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 with a condition that during the period of leave/parole the petitioner shall mark his appearance daily at 11:00 a.m. before the District Magistrate (respondent No.4) and he shall surrender before the concerned jail authority 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 of the like sum of his one of the family member to his satisfaction, as provided in Section 4(e) of the Rules, 1989. 11. In the result, the present petition stands disposed off with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- Sd (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.03.03 18:23:14 +0530