1 2025:CGHC:60223-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 560 of 2025 Manoj Agrawal S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged About 56 Years R/o Jagmal Chowk Bilaspur, Police Station- City Kotwali Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Jail Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Jail Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter- Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chhattisgarh State Probation Board Through- The Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Probation Board, Jail Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.12.15 17:46:05 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.12.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set- aside the order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed/issued by the respondent no.2 to the extent it concerns the petitioner and the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 2 of the C.G. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act 1954 may kindly be allowed; and 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner's application for release on probation has been rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 01.05.2025, just giving consent to the recommendation of Chhattisgarh State Probation Board (for short ‘the Board’). The Board, in its meeting dated 15/04/2025, has refused to make recommendation in favour of the 3 petitioner looking to the three prison offences registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 of IPC and Sections 25 &27 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and the petitioner is languishing in jail from 09.06.2010 to 02.04.2016, 18.04.2016 to 02.07.2020, 31.01.2021 to 05.03.2021 and thereafter he is in jail since 16.03.2021. Learned counsel further submits that the application for release on probation has been rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner has committed prison offences, whereas there is no prison offence after year 2018. He would submit that merely on the ground of prison offence, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of probation. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that there are three prison offences against the petitioner and as such he is not entitled for any relief. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. From perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Probation Board constituted has taken up the case of the petitioner alongwith 4 other cases for consideration in its meeting held on 15/04/2025. In the course of consideration, the State Probation Board 4 has observed that as on 25/03/2025 the petitioner has completed the jail sentence of 14 years, 8 months. The Board has further observed that the petitioner was convicted for commission offence of murder of one Nanka Sonkar and one Gudda Sonkar with unauthorized weapon i.e. Pistol by forming an unlawful assembly with his friends. The offence committed by the petitioner is a grave inhuman crime and heinous in nature. It has further been observed by the Board that while the petitioner was in jail, the petitioner was found to have committed jail offences on three occasions for which the petitioner was punished by the Jail Superintendent by way of forfeiting the earned jail remission of 5 days, giving warning for remaining absent in his barrack during the visit of higher officials and further by way of forfeiting the earned jail remission of 10 days due to possession of cash of Rs. 1600/-. It appears from the recommendation of the Board that in jail, the act and conduct of the petitioner was also not good. In such circumstances, the recommendation being made by the Station House Officer, Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate vide Annexure P/13, does not come to provide any aid and help to the case of the petitioner in any manner. After appreciating the materials available on record, the State Probation Board has not found the case of the petitioner fit for release on probation and the Board has recommended not to release the petitioner from jail. 7. In order to decide the petitioner's application, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions contained in Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954, which 5 reads as under:- “2. Power of Government to release by licence on conditions imposed by it-- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, where a person is confined in a prison under a sentence of imprisonment, and it appears to the Government from his antecedents and his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if he is released from prison, the Government may, by licence, permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision or authority of a Government Officer or of a person professing the same religion as the prisoner or such Institution or Society as may be recognised by the Government for the purpose, provided such other person, institution or society is willing to lake charge of him.” 8. Rule 3 & 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964 also have relevance to the issue and therefore the same are quoted herein below:- “3. Classes of prisoners not to be released.- The following classes of prisoners shall not be released under Act :- (a) Those convicted of offences under the Madhya 6 Bharat Vagrants, Habitual Offenders and Criminals (Restrictions and Settlement) Act, 1952, or any law in force in any region of the State corresponding to the said Act, or the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 or under the following Chapters or sections of the Indian Penal Code; “Chapters V-A, VI and VII and Section 216-A, 224 and 225 (if it is a case of an escape from a jail), 231, 232, 303, 311, 328, 364, 376, 382, 386 or 389, 392 to 402, 413, 459, 460 and 489-A. b) Those convicted under Section 7 of the Act or who are serving the unexpired sentence under sub- section (3) of Section 8 of the Act or whose license has been previously revoked on account of the breach of the conditions of the license. (c) xxxxxx (d) Those convicted by a Court-martial; (e) Those whose applications for temporary release under Section 31-A of the Prisoners' Act, 1990 or rules thereunder have been rejected. (f) Those who have been prosecuted and 7 convicted for the breach of the rules under Section 31-A of the Prisoners Act, 1900.” 4. Eligibility for release.- Save the prisoners specified in Rule 3 any other prisoner who has served one-third of his sentence of imprisonment or a total period of five years (without remission), whichever is less, may be released by the Government on licence. Provided that in case of such prisoners who have been sentenced for life imprisonment, under Sections 302 and 305 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (No.45 of 1860) or under the provisions of other penal laws in which death sentence is also one of the punishments subject to the conditions that such prisoners are not barred for such consideration under the provisions of such laws, will be considered for premature release from the prison. The eligibility for release shall be after undergoing the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment without remission of his sentence; Provided further that all other prisoners, undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment, will be considered for premature release only after they have undergone at least 10 years of imprisonment with remission and after the completion of 7 years of actual imprisonment without remission in sentence; 8 Provided also that nothing in the above provisions shall apply to the prisoners whose cases are being sent to the Hon'ble Governor for consideration under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, on special reasons of humanitarian grounds. 9. From perusal of minutes of meeting of the Board Annexure P-11, it appears that the prayer of the petitioner for release on probation has been rejected mainly on the ground fo seriousness of crime committed by the petitioner as well as on the ground of three prison offences registered against the petitioner. Except seriousness of crime, there is no valid reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of probation. In so far as prison offence is concerned, there is no further prison offence against the petitioner after year 2018 and therefore, the prison offences prepared against the petitioner between the year 2013 and 2018, cannot be a valid ground to reject the application of the petitioner for grant of probation at this juncture. In so far as the seriousness of crime committed by the petitioner is concerned, the same has to be considered at par with the period of actual detention undergone by the petitioner specifically where there is no further material to show that the petitioner can commit crime in future and furthermore, recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by the Station In-charge, P.S. City Kotwali Bilaspur, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and the District Magistrate, Bilaspur. 10. Considering the fact that the petitioner completed imprisonment of 9 14 years and 08 months and earned remission 03 years and 05 months 25 days as on 04.02.2025, thereby including remission petitioner completed 18 years, and the matter was already sent back three times by this Court for fresh consideration to the State Government, but even then the application of the petitioner for release on probation has been rejected on unsustainable grounds. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the forgoing discussions made above, hence, the same is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released under the provisions of the C.G. Prisoner’s Release on Probation Act, 1954 subject to the terms and conditions and to the satisfaction of the competent authority. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost(s) SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/Amardeep