1 2025:CGHC:37137-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 432 of 2025 Rajendra Singh Lodhi S/o Harnam Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khimlasa, New Basti, District Sagar, Madhyapradesh, Through His Cousin Brother Yashwant Lodhi, S/o Pooran Lodhi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Nayi Basti, Khimlasa, New Basti, District Sagar Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs (Jail), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur C.G. 2 - Director General (Prisons And Rehabilitation Services) Jail Department, Jail Headquarters, Central Jail, Raipur C.G. 3 - Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. 4 – Collector, Sagar, District Sagar M.P. 5 - Joint Collector, Sagar, District Sagar M.P. 6 - Superintendent Of Police, Sagar, District Sagar M.P. ...Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.31 10:39:46 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 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 26.06.2025 (P-1) passed by the office respondent no.4 and direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him for a period of 14+2 days. (iii) 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 Office of Collector-cum-District Magistrate, District Sagar (M.P.) vide order dated 26.06.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner’s release is 3 likely to lead quarrel and dispute by the petitioner on the ground that the the petitioner could cause harm to others and indulge in other criminal activities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under the NDPS Act, vide judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) North Bastar Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 years with fine. He would also submit that the co- accused person convicted in the same crime has also been granted parole. He would further submit 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 26.06.2025 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, Sagar 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 4 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 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) and also considering the fact that the other co-accused person has already been granted parole, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Sagar (Annexure P/1) 5 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Sagar (M.P.) 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, Sagar (M.P.) 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 S. Bhilwar/ Jyoti