1 2025:CGHC:47182-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 507 of 2025 Tabarak Ali S/o Shri Gaffar Ali, aged about 25 years Convict No. 3630/43, lodged in Durg Central Jail, Durg, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional District Magistrate Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent of Police Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Thana In-Charge Police Station - Khursipar, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15 . 09 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside order dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Durg; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to release the petitioner for 16 days in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rule, 1889; (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 Additional District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) vide order dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure-P/1) on the basis of recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner’s release is likely to lead quarrel and dispute by the petitioner on the ground that the victim’s family had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to their life and property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a convict for offence under Section 302, 34 of IPC and is languishing in Central Jail, Raipur. The petitioner has challenged his conviction before this Court by way of CRA No. 1016/2022, in which, his application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been rejected and the appeal is pending. He would further submit that the petitioner has spent approximately about 05 years and 03 months in jail till date and his application for parole has been rejected by the respondent No.3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of 3 Rule 4 & 6 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 respondent No.3 dated 14.07.2025 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 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. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Additional District Magistrate was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police that if the petitioner is released on parole, victim’s family had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to their life and property, hence he rejected the application of the petitioner. 8. In the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on 05/08/2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020, the 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 4 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 Additional District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order dated dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Durg (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 District Magistrate, Durg (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, Durg (C.G.) on each day during that period. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra