1 2025:CGHC:10691-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 125 of 2025 Kondaru Dharmarao S/o Kanhaiya Rao Aged About 39 Years R/o Streat No. 51, Balaji Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, Police Station - Khursipar, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Jail Central Jail, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05 .0 3 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Anjali Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Bahgel, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.05 18:35:03 +0530 2 “i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 03.01.2025 (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 15 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.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector, Durg (C.G.) vide order dated 03.01.2025 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 on the ground that the victim’s family had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to life and property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in jail since 23.06.2018 and has not been released on parole till date. The criminal appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2024. He would further submit his application for parole has been rejected by the respondent No.3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 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 respondent No.3 dated 03.01.2025 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 learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Collector 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. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on 05/08/2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020, the 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 instant 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 4 application of the petitioner. In view of the above matter and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the Collector, Durg (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the Collector, Durg (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 am positively. The Collector, while allowing the application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may also seek surety 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra