1 2025:CGHC:3575-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 11 of 2025 1 - Narendra Kaushik Urf Dara S/o Ghanshyam Kaushik, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Amsena, Tahsil Sakri District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Through His Brother Subhash Kaushik, Son of Ghanshyam Kaushik, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Amsena, Tahsil Sakri District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its, Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The District Magistrate Bilaspur District Bilaspur(C.G.) 4 - The Jail Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21-01-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioner’s leave case for kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court. 10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 To grant any others relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the respondent No.3 District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 17-09-2024 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 he is likely to commit cognizable offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently in Central Jail Bilaspur as prisoner No.884/130. He is serving sentence of imprisonment under Section 450, 506 of the 3 IPC and Section 05, 06 of POCSO Act. The petitioner has served more than 2 years, 05 months and 21 days imprisonment as on 14-07-2023 and becomes eligible for the benefit of release on leave under the C.G. Prisoner’s Leave Rules. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.3 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 passed by respondent No.3 dated 17-09-2024 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 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, Bilaspur 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 4 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, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) dated 17-09-2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 10. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)/Respondent No.3 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 with a condition that during the period of leave/parole the petitioner shall mark his appearance daily at 11:00 5 a.m. before the District Magistrate/Respondent No.3 and he shall surrender before the concerned jail authority after completion of the aforesaid period positively. The District Magistrate while allowing the application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may also seek surety as provided in Section 4 (e) of the Rules, 1989. 11. In the result, the present petition stands disposed off with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil