1 2025:CGHC:6454-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 76 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Satnami S/o Govind Satnami Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bandora Post Jhironi, P.S. Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Superintendent Of Jail, Central Jail, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.). 3 - Collector, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 4 - Superintendent Of Police, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 5 - Station House Incharge, P.S. Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhavi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, G. A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents in the 2 present writ petition. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- 1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 21.10.2024 (P/1) passed by the office of respondent No. 3 and direct the respondent no. 3 to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him for a period of 14 days. 2. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 Collector/ District Magistrate, Kabirdham (CG) vide order dated 21.10.2024 on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police holding that the victim’s family has objected his release and the petition is convict of serious offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is lodged in Central Jail, Durg since 10.09.2019. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC by the learned Session Judge, Kabirdham. The petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1286/2021 which is pending before this Hon’ble Court. His application application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been rejected on 03.05.024, 19.06.2023 and on 23.02.2022 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 21.10.2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 3 5. On the other hand, learned 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, Kabirdham 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 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 4 passed by the District Magistrate, District Kabirdham (C.G.) dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 10. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, District Kabirdham (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 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 sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.02.06 16:31:01 +0530