1 2025:CGHC:19820-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 260 of 2025 Nilesh Kumar Ajgalle S/o Shyamnarayan Aged About 23 Years Convict No. 7313 /34, R/o Village Mudpar, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bi- laigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattis- garh. 2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Matistrate Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent of Police District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.05.2025 1 Heard Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.05.02 10:55:08 +0530 2 2 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(i) Call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. (ii) Quash the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.3 and order may kindly be passed for temporary release/parole of the petitioner for 14+2 days. (iii) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) vide order dated 23.01.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that Sarpanch and Panchs for the Gram Panchayat, Mudpar had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause disturbance of peace in the village. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 436/149, 435/149, 201/149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, vide judgment dated 15.11.2022, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar and is languishing in jail since 18.12.2017. He would further submit that the application of the 3 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, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh dated 23.01.2025 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 the 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 Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh was swaying with the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that Sarpanch and Panchs for the Gram Panchayat, Mudpar had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause disturbance of peace in the village, 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 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 4 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 Sarpanch and Panchs for the Gram Panchayat, Mudpar, without considering the relevant rules, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh 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, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Annexure- P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of 14 days. 11. Accordingly, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) is directed to verify the surety submitted by the petitioner and issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to 5 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, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, 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, Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (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