1 2025:CGHC:18797-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 241 of 2025 Daulal Kathle S/o Kathalu Kathle Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Sanakpat, Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., Through - His Son Jai Kumar Kathle S/o Shri Daulal Kathle, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village - Sanakpat, Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail), Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - The District Magistrate Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent of Police Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/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,C. J. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.29 10:34:50 +0530 2 25/04/2025 Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioner’s leave case for kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court. 10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) was rejected by the District Magistrate, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) vide order dated 05.03.2025, a copy of which has been filed vide Annexure P/1, against which the petitioner has preferred the present petition for a direction to the District Magistrate, Bastar (C.G.) to consider the prayer of the petitioner as the petitioner is in jail since the year 2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act and is languishing in jail since more than 3 three years. 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 the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989') and the respondents have acted arbitrarily violating Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 05.03.2025 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 District Magistrate, Kabirdham was swaying with the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is likelihood that he may abscond and there are previous antecedents against the petitioner and would commit cognizable offence etc., 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 4 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 District Magistrate 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 District Magistrate, Kabirdham, dated 05.03.2025 (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, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (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 5 parole to the petitioner, may also seek heavy 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, Kabirdham 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 ashu