1 2025:CGHC:28892-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 354 of 2025 Abhishek Dan S/o Shri Yashwant Dan Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Water Tank, Post- Bilaspur, P.S.- Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Senior Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.01 10:27:42 +0530 2 30.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 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 set-aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the authorities to release the petitioner on parole, in accordance with law. 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector & District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 15.04.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police holding that the the petitioner may abscond and the release of petitioner may amount of breach of public peace. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 363, 364(A), 387, 302/34, 201/34 of the IPC, vide judgment dated 23.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) and the petitioner is languishing in jail since his date of arrest. She would further 3 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 & District Magistrate dated 15.04.2025 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 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 *\& District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is likelihood that he would abscond and breach public peace, 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 4 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 Senior 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 Collector & District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (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 Magistrate, Bilaspur, District- 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 5 Collector & District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) on each day during that period. 11. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet