1 2025:CGHC:16840-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 194 of 2025 A. Janpal @ D.K. S/o Late A. Rameshwar Rao Aged About 25 Years R/o Sector-6, Sadak No. 56, Quarter No. 4 A, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... 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 Durg (C.G.) 4. Additional Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5. Superintendent of Police District Durg (C.G.) 6. Station House OfÏcer P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.15 11:16:07 +0530 2 2. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 02.04.2025 (P-1) passed by the ofÏce of respondent No. 4 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, District Durg (C.G.) vide order dated 02.04.2025 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. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), vide judgment dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) and the petitioner is languishing in jail since 03.09.2020. She would further submit 3 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, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 09.12.2024 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. He further submits that criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 460 of 2024 filed on behalf of the petitioner had already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025. 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 District Magistrate, Durg 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. 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 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 4 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…” 10. In the present case also merely on the basis of the vague report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, without considering the relevant rules, the District Magistrate 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 District Magistrate, Durg (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 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 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.) 5 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 Brijmohan