1 2025:CGHC:16412-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 190 of 2025 1 - Neelam Kumar Deshmukh S/o Shailendra Kumar Deshmukh Aged About 21 Years R/o Kotgaon, Police Station Arjunda, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 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 Balod (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police District Balod (C.G.) 5 - Station House OfÏcer Police Station Arjunda, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 08 /0 4 /202 5 Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2 Heard Ms. Sweksha Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the ofÏce of respondent No. 3 and direct the respondent No. 3 to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him in the application for 14 days leave. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) was rejected by the Collector, District Balod (C.G.) vide order Annexure P/1 dated 11.09.2024, Against the rejection order dated 11.09.2024 the petitioner has preferred the present petition for a direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the prayer of the petitioner as the petitioner is in jail since the year 2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 450, 376(2)(f)(1) of IPC and is languishing in jail since four years and nine months. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the ofÏce 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, 3 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 11.09.2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate would support the impugned order and oppose the prayer made by 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 respondent No. 3 was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Station House ofÏcer 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 4 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 SHO, without considering the relevant rules, the respondent No. 3 has rejected the 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 respondent No. 3, dated 11.09.2024 (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, 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 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, Balod (C.G.) on each day during that period. 11. In the result, the present petition stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.04.15 12:31:49 +0530