1 2025:CGHC:5962-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 72 of 2025 1 - Shatruhan alias Chitthi Jangde S/o Sakharam Jangde, Aged About 33 Years, Convict No. 7832/36, Lodged in Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, Distt., Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Magistrate, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 4 - Superintendent of Police, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 5 - Thana In-Charge, Police Station - Bhatapara Town, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Shriwash, 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 03-02-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Ankita Shriwash, 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): “”(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to grant 16 days temporary leave to the petitioner 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 respondent No.3 District Magistrate, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) vide order dated 03-12-2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the victim’s family has objected his release and the petitioner is convict of serious offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is lodged in Central Jail, Raipur. The petitioner was convicted under Section 450, 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court 3 (POCSO), Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). The petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No.2050/2023 which is pending before this Hon’ble Court. His application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been rejected vide order dated 04-04-2024 by this Court. She 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 03-12-2024 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, Balodabazar-Bhatapara was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police that the victim’s family has objected release of petitioner on parole and he is convict of serious 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, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) dated 03-12-2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 10. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (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 concerned 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