1 2025:CGHC:20107-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 266 of 2025 Sher Singh S/o Baratu Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Sundari Ps Palari Tahsil Palari District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary Home Department (Jail) Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur C.G. Pin- 492001 2. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector and Distt. Magistrate Balodabazar-Bhatapara District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4. The Superintendent of Police Balodabazar Distt. - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.05.02 18:46:51 +0530 2 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 direct to the respondents to passed the order in favour of the petitioner and quashed the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/2) and directed to District Magistrate issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for the period applied for within a period of 15 days. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 10.3 That, any other relief, which Hon’ble Court deems it fit proper, may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balodabazar- Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) vide order dated 24.03.2025 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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner 3 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, vide judgment dated 11.05.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur (Now District Balodabazar- Bhatapara). He further submits that against his conviction petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court of M.P. (now State of Chhattisgarh) in which High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of sthe petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has been also dismissed on 10.10.2023. 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, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 24.03.2025 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 District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police that if the petitioner is released 4 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 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 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 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, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Annexure P/2) is 5 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, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (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, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) on each day during that period. 11. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan