1 2025:CGHC:16620-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 193 of 2025 G. Ramesh S/o G. Sudhakar Aged About 21 Years R/o Sector- 6, Street 57, Quater 3e, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner 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- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Additional Collector Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Superintendent Of Police District- Durg (C.G.) 6 - Station House Officer P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.04 .202 5 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through Video Conferencing. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.15 10:31:11 +0530 2 2. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 26.03.2025 (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 14 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.” 4. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) vide order dated 26.03.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the mother and brothers of the deceased had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to their life and property. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), vide judgment dated 11.12.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2021 3 and is languishing in jail since 03.09.2020. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the office 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, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate dated 26.03.2025 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 8. From perusal of the impugned order shows that the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Durg was swaying with the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the mother and brothers of the deceased had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to their life and property, hence he rejected the application of the petitioner. 9. Recently, 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 of parole to those whose application was rejected on the ground that the crime is heinous and release of such a person 4 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 dehors 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…” 10. In the present case also merely on the basis of the statements of the mother and brothers of the deceased, without considering the relevant rules, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Durg 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 Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Durg (Annexure-P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 5 11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, 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 11.00 a.m. positively. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Durg, 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 Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) on each day during that period. 12. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu