1 2025:CGHC:309-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 508 of 2024 1 - Anandkumar @ Anant Kumar S/o Rajim Lochan Aged About 36 Years Convict No. 7105/32, Lodged In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Magistrate Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - Thana In-Charge Police Station - Basna, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/01/2025 1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. 2 Baghel, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside order dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Mahasamund. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to release the petitioner for 16 days in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989; (iii) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice." 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Mahasamund, vide order dated 09.10.2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner's release is likely to lead quarrel and dispute by the petitioner with the victim's family and petitioner is likely to commit cognizable offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a life convict lodged in Raipur Central Jail. He was convicted by the Special S.C.S.T. Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, for the offence under Sections 376 (n) (n). He has spent more than 02 years in imprisonment and Criminal Appeal challenging his conviction is pending before this Hon’ble High Court. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Magistrate summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in short ‘the Rule, 1989’) as well as Rules 6, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order dated 09.10.2024 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 3 opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. We have heard the 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 District Magistrate, Mahasamund 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. In the matter of Shor v. State of U.P. 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 instant 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), the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Mahasamund dated 09.10.2024 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 4 10. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) is directed to issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days from the date of his release on leave/parole on furnishing his personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like some of his one of the family member to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate as provided in Section 4 (e) of the Rules, 1989. The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authority after completion of the aforesaid period of 14 days positively. 11. In the result, with the aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok