1 2025:CGHC:19556-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 255 of 2025 Surjeet Singh Randhawa S/o Gurubaksh Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Plot No. 5-B Sundar Vihar Colony, Bhilai, Police Station- Jamul, 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 Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, 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 Ms. Anjali Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 27.11.2024 (P-1) passed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 the respondent No.3 and direct the respondent No.3 to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him for a period of 15 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.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector, District - Durg (C.G.) vide order dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure-P/1) on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner’s release is likely to lead involvement in sale of drugs in the area, due to which there is anger among the people and the offence committed is heinous in nature. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted in Crime No. 87/2018 registered at Police station- Revenue Intelligence Directorate(D.R.I.)-Nagpur Regional Unit, under Section 8(c)/20(b)ii(C) and 29 read with 20(b)ii(C) of N.D.P.S. Act 1985, passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, vide judgment dated 15.03.2023. The petitioner has been convicted for a period of 20 years under section 8(c)/20(b)ii(C) and 29 read with 20(b)ii(C) of N.D.P.S. Act 1985, there after petitioner has filed the Criminal Appeal before this Court, which came to dismissed vide judgment dated 24.04.2024. She would further submit that the petitioner is in jail since 23.06.2018 and has not been released on parole. The application for the grant of ordinary leave was made by the petitioner before the respondent No.3, which has been rejected by the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 27.11.2024 summarily without following the relevant provisions of 3 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, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 27.11.2024 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 Collector 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 4 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 Collector, District - Durg 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 dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Collector, District - Durg (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, District - Durg 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 Collector, 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, District - Durg on each day during that period. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra