Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.21 17:45:30 +0530 2025:CGHC:34378-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 407 of 2025 Mohd. Shamim Ansari S/o Mohd. Karim Ansari, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Batwahi (Khaspara), Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Surguja, District Surguja, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Superintendent Of Police, Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 2 1.07 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “i. That, the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to quash the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passe by the respondent no 02, in the ends of justice. ii. That, the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on temporary leave as early as possible for a period of prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner 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 Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) vide order dated 30.05.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that members of the Gram Panchayat and residents of the Village Batwahi have 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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in jail since last 04 years and he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 of the IPC, vide 3 judgment dated 29.10.2020 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). It has been contended that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the office of respondent No.2 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 30.05.2025 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 7. From perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) was swaying with the statements of the members of the Gram Panchayat as well as residents of Village Batwahi have categorically stated that, the prisoner is a quarrelsome person and there is resentment in the Village against him and have given their separate 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. 8. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on 4 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, merely on the basis of the fact that members of the Gram Panchayat as well as residents of village Batwahi have objected the release of the petitioner on parole, without considering the relevant rules, the District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. 5 10. 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-cum-Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 11. Accordingly, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja (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 District Magistrate, 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 District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) on each day during that period. 12. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu