1 2025:CGHC:6454-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 75 of 2025 1 - Ravindra Shriwas S/o Shri Ramadhar Shriwas Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Semartal, Police Station - Koni Civil And Revenue District - Bilaspur (C.G.). --- At Present R/o Village Ghuru P.S. Chakarbhata Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Prisons And Correctional Services (C.G.), Head Quarter Prisoner And Correctional Services (C.G.). 3 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.02.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2, rejecting the application 2 of parole filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to this case from possession of the respondent for it’s kind perusal ; 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash/ set aside the penalty of forfeiture of 4475 days of earned remission imposed upon the petitioner for his overstay on leave and also give direction for granting parole leave to the petitioner. 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 brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC for commission of murder of the deceased Shiv Shankar and faced trial of sessions case No. 144 of 2008 before the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. He was convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid sessions case vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2011 and sentenced for R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, 01 month addl. R.I. The petitioner was also convicted for the offence of Section 27(1) of Arms Act and sentenced for R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 01 month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The judgment of his conviction and sentence was challenged by the petitioner along with the other convicted co-accused persons before this Court by filing his Cr.A. No. 261 of 2011 which was came up for hearing on 14.05.2014 and after hearing the parties, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and his conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 29/04/2015 he was released on parole and he had to surrender on 10.05.2015 but he failed to do so. The reason assigned by the petitioner is that his wife was suffering from critical health problem and therefore, he could not surrender and offence under Section 229 A of the IPC was registered against the petitioner and he could be arrested on 28/07/2017. he faced his trial of Criminal Case No. 3683/2017 for the offence under Section 229 A of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur and vide judgment dated 3 22.01.2019, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for simple imprisonment for one year. 4. The claim of the petitioner is that he has already completed his entire sentence and if the benefit of remission is to be granted to him, he could be released from jail as he has already undergone the actual sentence of 13 years and including the remission, he has already undergone about 16 years of his sentence. Since, the petitioner could not surrender on 10.05.2015 and over stayed for about two years 5 month and 12 days and remained abscond, his remission period for 4475 days is forfeited and therefore, he is also not releasing on parole. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that forfeiture of the earned remission of the petitioner is arbitrary as per the Rule 12 of Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rule, 1989. the forfeiture of 4475 days of earned remission without hearing the petitioner is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25 of Constitution of India and imposition of such penalty is against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has already convicted for his guilt of absconding and over staying and he cannot be punished for the same allegation by forfeiting his earned remission. The petitioner was over stayed from parole due to the critical health of his wife, therefore, the petitioner was having bona fide intention for his over staying and the same may be condoned and the benefit of remission/ parole may be granted to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the forfeiture of earned leave of the petitioner is in accordance with the Rules provided under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. There is a provision of forfeiture of 5 days of earned leave for over staying of 1 day and in that ratio the petitioner had over stayed for about 895 days for which his earned leave of 4475 days have been forfeited which is in accordance with law. Further, the petitioner is found guilty for the offence under Section 229 A of IPC and sentenced for S.I. for 01 year which he has not challenged in any higher appellate authority. The impugned order of rejecting his application for parole has been dismissed on 05.01.2022 and after about 03 years, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 05.01.2022 which is highly belated and further looking to the conduct of the petitioner that he earlier over stayed from his parole and has been convicted for the said offence, there is every possibility that he may again repeat the act of over staying from parole and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief and his petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 7. The petitioner could not dispute that that when he was released on parole on 29/04/2015, he had to surrender on 10/05/2015 but he remained absconding up to 20.10.2017. It is also not in dispute that an offence under Section 229 A of IPC was registered against him in which he has been convicted and sentenced for S.I. for 1 year and there is no submission that he has challenged his conviction before any higher forum. From perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner before the jail authorities (Annexure- P/5) it appears that the petitioner had abscond and reason for its absconding assigned by him i.e. his wife was suffering from severe ailment and when she recovered from her ailment, she conceived pregnancy, he has taken her care for about nine month and after delivering the child, he surrendered before the Koni Police Station, his abscond was on bona fide reason and was not deliberate. The petitioner remained absconding for such a long time of more than two years itself shows the deliberate mind set of the petitioner to remain outside from the jail and his sentence. Rule- 4 (B) (3) provides that if any convicted prisoner has over stayed or abscond then he would not be entitled for any leave in future. Rule 4(B)(3) of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules,1989 is reproduced hereinbelow:- 4B. Category of prisoners, who are not eligible for leave .- (3) In case of a prisoner who has been sentenced to any punishment owing to his escape during his previous leave such prisoner shall not be eligible for general leave, for the rest of his term of sentence. 8. Further the penalty prescribed for over staying from the period of parole is also prescribed in the said prisoners leave rules under Rule 12 which is as under:- Rule 12- Penalty for overstay.– If the prisoner returns to the jail of his own accord after the date fixed for his return he shall be admitted to the jail and the prisoner's return and the reason for the delay shall be reported immediately to the District Magistrate of the district in which the jail is situated, for his orders where the prisoner should be prosecuted. If it is not considered to prosecute, the Superintendent should hold an enquiry and may for good and sufficient reasons, award one of the following punishments:– (a) Formal Warning. (b) Forfeiture for a period not exceeding 3 months privileges of interview, receiving and sending letters. (c) Degradation from higher to lower grade. 5 (d) Forfeiture of 5 days remission for each day’s overstayal on leave which shall not exceed total period of his sentence inclusive of unexpired period of sentence. 9. Since, there is no exclusion from the over staying from the period of parole and there is a specific provision provided in the Rules of 1989 that for every one day of over staying, the earned remission of five days is to be forfeited. Admittedly the petitioner was absconding for about 895 days and in that calculation, his earned leave of 4425 days have been forfeited which cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. When the Rules provided for the same that has to be followed by the parties. Further the conduct of the petitioner would make him disentitled for further release on parole. Once, when he has committed the offence under Section 229 A of IPC and has convicted, Rule 4(B) (3) of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Rule 1989 makes him dis-entitled for further leave in future for which his application for parole has been dismissed by the respondent No. 2 in which also this Court does not found any irregularity or infirmity. Since, this Court has found no reason to interfere in the petition filed by the petitioner on merits and hold that the action taken by the respondent No.2 is in accordance with Rules of 1989, it would be a futile exercise to deal with the delayed filing of the present petition as the impugned order (Annexure-P/6) is passed on 05.01.2022 whereas the present petition has been filed on 24.01.2025 i.e. after about three years. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to grant relief to the petitioner as claimed in the present petition. The same is devoid of merits, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.02.18 14:30:35 +0530