1 2025:CGHC:19816-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 253 of 2025 Takhatram Suryawanshi S/o Shri Teejram Aged About 53 Years R/o Vil- lage- Tekar, Near Chandani Chowk, Post- Jali, Police Station- Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home (Jail) Depart- ment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattis- garh, Head Quarter- Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District Magistrate Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy 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. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy 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: “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it’s kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.3 and the application (Annexure P/2) filed by the petitioner under C.G. Prisoners leave Rule 1989 may kindly be allowed; 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3 The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 31.12.2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that family members of the deceased had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to their life and property. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), vide judgment dated 28.09.2022, passed 3 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.92 of 2020 and is languishing in jail since 08.08.2020. 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 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, Bilaspur dated 31.12.2024 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 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, Bilaspur was swaying with the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the family members of the deceased had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to their life and property, 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 4 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 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 family members of the deceased, without considering the relevant rules, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur 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, Bilaspur (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, Bilaspur (C.G.) is directed to verify the surety submitted by the petitioner and issue 5 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-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur, 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, Durg (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