1 2025:CGHC:19554-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 254 of 2025 Suraj Kumar S/o Santosh Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tala Para Rajesh Aata Chakki, Post Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Through His Mother- Laxmi Ahirwar, Wife Of Santosh Kumar, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Tala Para Rajesh Aata Chakki, Post Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its, Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The District Magistrate Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate For Respondent(s) : 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 30 . 04 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 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 16.04.2025 (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 others relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-P/1) 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 is in jail since 13.03.2023 and has not been released on parole till date. The criminal appeal of the petitioner has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2023. He would further submit that the petitioner has spent approximately about 02 years, 01 months and 17 days in jail till date and his application for parole has been rejected by the respondent No.3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 3 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 16.04.2025 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 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. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate 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. 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 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 4 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, Bilaspur (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 District Magistrate, Bilaspur (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, Bilaspur (C.G.) on each day during that period. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra