1 2025:CGHC:7640-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 89 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Chhabiram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhobni, Police Station - Sarsinwa, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Beladula (Sarsinwa) District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms.Ritika Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.13 17:31:53 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Ritika Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). ii. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant temporary leave to the petitioner in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989. iii. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh 3 (C.G.) vide order dated 23.01.2025 on the ground that only meeting his family does not provide sufficient and solid basis for granting leave. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part II of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, vide judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Balodabazar (C.G.) and is languishing in jail since 16.06.2020. She would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the office of respondent No. 2 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 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 District Magistrate dated 23.01.2025 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 the 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 District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh was swaying with the opinion that only meeting his family does not provide sufficient and solid basis for granting leave, hence he rejected the application of the petitioner. 8. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on 4 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 present case also, merely on the basis of vague ground, 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, 5 Sarangarh-Bilaigarh dated 23.01.2025 (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 Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (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, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh on each day during that period. 11. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu