1 2025:CGHC:32185-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 388 of 2025 Hemant @ Nanu Kaushik S/o Dwarika Kaushik Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Lasatola, Post- Mahrajpur, P.S. - Charbhatha, Tahsil - Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Its, Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Jail And Correctional Services Chhattigarh. The Director General Prisoner, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Collector / District Magistrate Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 - The Superintendent of Police Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.07 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.11 17:00:28 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 05.03.2025 (P-1) passed by the office of respondent No.4 and direct the respondent No.4 to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him for a period of 14 days. 10.2 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-cum-District Magistrate, Kabirdham (C.G.) vide order dated 05.03.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that several crimes were found registered in the name of the petitioner such as (i) Crime No. 91/2018 at Police Station Lohara under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 34, 147, 148 IPC, (ii) Crime No. 33/2021 at Outpost Bazar Charbhatha under Sections 294, 506, 307, 34, 302 IPC, and (iii) Complaint Nos. 179/2018, 337/2018, and 190/2021 under Sections 107, 116(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in jail since 10.01.2021 i.e. for about more than 04 years and he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 3 of the IPC, vide judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.). He would further submit that out of three cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in two cases and only one case is pending against him. Copies of the acquittal orders dated 09.06.2022 and 16.09.2022 are produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court and same were directed to be taken on record. It has been contended that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the office of respondent No.4 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 05.03.2025 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, Kabirdham 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 4 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, merely on the basis of the fact that three cases were pending against the petitioner, without considering the 5 relevant rules, the District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. 10. 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, Kabirdham (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 11. Accordingly, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kabirdham (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, Kabirdham on each day during that period. 12. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu