Nafr High Court
Case Details
AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.18 18:13:02 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:41120-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 448 of 2025 Yashwant Kumar Sinha S/o Videsh Ram Sinha Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Satmara, Police Station - Ranchirai, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh, Thorugh - His Son Pushpendra S/o Yashwant Kumar Sinha, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village - Satmara, Police Station - Ranchirai, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail), Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - The District Magistrate Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Petitioner For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. ... Respondents Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Legal Reasoning
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/08/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for following relief:- “10.1 To call for entire records from 2 respondents pertaining to petitioner’s leave case for kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court. 10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate, Balod, (C.G.) vide order dated 12.01.2023 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 12/01/2023 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the application for grant of parole filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.3 without mentioning the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Balod. The petitioner is in jail since 14.07.2019 and has served more than 06 years imprisonment becomes eligible for the benefit of release on leave under the C.G. Prisoner's Leave Rules. 4. In compliance of the Court order dated 08/08/2025, the then Additional District Magistrate has filed affidavit and it is admitted that though the opinion of the Superintendent of Police was not on record, she could not pass the orders on merits and she has apologized for the said act. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced below:- 3 “5. In compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court it is respectfully submitted that as per Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 the condition for leave to the prisoners is prescribed. That as per Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 the power for sanctioning authority for first leave is prescribed. The District Magistrate is responsible for the proper carrying out of these instructions. He may of course, consult the District Superintendent of Police on 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 sent to the District Magistrate alongwith 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 concerned 4 District Magistrate shall make necessary enquiries from the District Magistrate of that District before sanctioning the leave. 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. 6. That after receiving the application before the jail authority, the jail authority have prepared Form (Cha) of the Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 and the same has been forwarded by the Jail authority. 7. The jail authority have also prepared the period of which he was in jail and same has been forwarded to the District Magistrate for grant of leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 in accordance with law. 8. That after receiving the application and recommendation from the jail authority, District Magistrate have issued letter to the Superintendent of Police and directed for enquiry as per Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Rules, 1989 to the Superintendent of Police, District Balod (CG) on 24/11/2022 (annexed as Document- A) about the condition prescribed and specifically instructed detailed enquiry to be conducted on following 5 ground- (a) Whether any previous criminal record prior to conviction. If yes then provide details? (b) Whether prisoner is an offender for first time ? (c) Whether prisoner is a habitual offender. If yes then details ? and (d) whether petitioner convicted on earlier occasion or not ? 9. It is also instructed to the Superintendent of Police to verify the genuineness and competency of the guarantor and also enquire and record's statement's of the local residents and family members of the complainant/victim and examine whether any fraught with the danger to the public safety will arise or not upon the releasing of the prisoner on leave or there is any chance that the prisoner will break the leave and place where the surety reside should be asked to accept the surety or not. 10. In compliance of directions of District Magistrate, Police have enquired, recorded the statement of the person who given a surety/guarantee. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Complainant/Victim and their family members. On enquiry it was found that the person who given a surety are capable and they are ready and willing to give 6 surety in favour of the prisoner. The Sarpanch of the Village Smt. Yogita Sahu, Ward Panch Nageshwar Sahu, Panch Smt. Jamuna Bai Sahu, Villager Aashu Ram Singh and Daman Lal Sinha and the victim family namely Devnarayan Sahu (father of victim), Smt. Saraswati Bai Sahu (Mother of victim), Smt. Kesar Bai Sahu (Grandmother of victim) have given statement that if prisoner releasing on leave there is every likelihood to fraught to the danger of the public safety as she is habitual of roaming in drunken condition and used filthy language thereof and further releasing the prisoner on leave their life will be in danger and the fraught with the public safety. 11. That on the basis of the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate along with document as per communication vide letter dated 20/12/2022 District Magistrate has examined the recommendation and documents and come to the conclusion that if prisoner be released on leave then safety of the public will be in danger specially to the victim and their family as the petitioner is an accused of heinous crime under section 363 and section 376(2) (i) of IPC and section 5(D)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 12. In the instant case the petitioner was convicted for the 7 offence punishable under section 363 and section 376(2) (i) of IPC and section 5(D)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Therefore, looking to the entire fact of the case Superintendent of Police, District Balod have recommended that the prisoner will not be released on leave, if he be released on leave peace of the society will be fraught and the life of the victim family will be in danger. After perusal of the statement and recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate has examined the case and recommended for rejection of the leave application of the petitioner/prisoner and order has been passed by the deponent Additional District Magistrate for and on behalf of the District Magistrate as recommended by the District Magistrate and the same has been intimated to the prisoner. The deponent crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to pardon her for of the not mentioning the opinion Superintendent of Police, Balod as the same is unintentional and bonafide. The deponent undertakes that the same be not repeated in future and due caution will be taken in future while passing the order.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. 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 8 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…” 7. In the present case, considering that the impugned order dated 12/01/2023 has been passed by the respondent No.3 without mentioning the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Balod and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order dated 12/01/2023 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Balod (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 9 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, Durg (C.G.) on each day during that period. 9.
Decision
In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep