1 2025:CGHC:8274-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 93 of 2025 1 - Rajendra Sidar @ Rajendra Kumar Sidar S/o Shri Sethuram Sidar, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Chikhalarounda, Post - Chikhalarounda, Police Station - Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail), Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Director General, Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter - Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Collector - Cum - District Magistrate, Sakti (C.G.). 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, Sakti (C.G.) 5 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) ____ For Petitioner : Shri Vikrant Pillay, Advocate. For State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt.Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ 18.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.02.18 15:21:35 +0530 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order, or direction and quash the order dated 31-12-2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.3 and the application (Annexure P/2) filed by the petitioner under C.G. Prisoners Leave Rules 1989 may kindly be allowed.” 2. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Sakti, vide order dated 31.12.2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner's release is likely to lead quarrel and dispute by the petitioner with the victim's family and petitioner is likely to commit cognizable offence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a life convict. He was convicted by First Additional Sessions Judge Sakti for the offence under Sections 450 and 302 IPC. He has spent about 4 years in imprisonment and Criminal Appeal challenging his conviction is pending before this Hon’ble High Court. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Magistrate 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 dated 31.12.2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, 3 Bilaspur was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is likelihood that he would commit cognizable offence, hence he rejected the application of the petitioner. 7. 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….” 8. 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, Sakti, dated 31.12.2024 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 9. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 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 4 that during the period of leave/parole the petitioner shall mark his appearance daily at 11:00 AM before the concerned District Magistrate and he shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on 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. 10. In the result, the present petition stands disposed off with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder