Chattisgarh High Court
Chamru Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2021
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 136 of 2021
Order Reserved on : 14.07.2021
Order Delivered on : 06.08.2021
Chamru Ram, S/o Late Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
Convict No. 2029/08, Lodged in Raipur, Central Jail, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of
Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. Superintendent of Police, Gariaband, District- Gariaband
(C.G.)
4. District Magistrate, Gariaband, District- Gariaband (C.G.)
5. Additional District Magistrate, Gariaband, District- Gariaband
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate.
For State/Respondents : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Govt. Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV Order
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, with a prayer to release him on leave
under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 and to
quash the order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by
Additional District Magistrate, Gariaband, District- Gariaband
by which application of the petitioner for grant of leave has
been rejected.
2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the
petitioner is in jail since 2013 and at present he has served
about 8 years of jail sentence as he was involved in
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
and he was sentenced for lifetime.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has already suffered jail sentence of more than 8
years and as per the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules,
1989 (for short "the Rules, 1989") framed by State of
Chhattisgarh, the petitioner is entitled for grant of leave.
Hence, it is prayed that on above factual matrix, the petitioner
may be released on parole.
4. Learned State counsel has filed reply on 05.04.2021 enclosing
copy of letter dated 17.12.2020 of Police Station- Mainpur,
District- Gariaband, wherein it has been mentioned that the
petitioner/ accused may abscond, if he is released on parole.
He would further submit that the order passed by the
Additional District Magistrate, Gariaband is legal and justified,
present petition is without merit and substance, hence, it is
prayed that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records annexed with the petition with utmost satisfaction.
6. This Court in case of Ratan Das Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
others1, considering the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900
(for short "the Act, 1900"), the Rules, 1989, relied upon
judgments passed by Hon'be the Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra & another Vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar 2,
Dharani Sugars & Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India &
others3 and Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan & others4, as well
as judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court,
held in para 16 & 17, which are extracted below:-
"16. From the above discussion, considering the
Rules, 1989 and also the law laid down by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in above mentioned
judgments, Asfaq (Supra), it is clear that the
authority while allowing or rejecting the
application of the prisoner for leave on parole,
has to consider the parameters laid down in the
Rules, 1989. From the facts of the present writ
2 AIR 2006 SC 2471
3 (2019) 5 SCC 480
4 AIR 2017 SC 4986
petition, it is clear that there is no such
consideration made, therefore, the decision
making process of the authority suffers from non-
application of mind and deviation from the
standard procedure prescribed under the Rules,
1989, as such, order dated 30.12.2020 rejecting
the parole of the petitioner is liable to be
quashed.
17. These rules clearly stipulate that the
District Magistrate while considering the
application for grant of parole, should consider
the conditions as enumerated in Rule 4 & 6 of the
Rules, 1989 and thereafter, based upon the
material, he should form opinion whether the
prisoner is entitled to be released on parole or
not. A detailed procedure has been prescribed
under the Rule 1989, which has to be strictly
adhered to by the District Magistrate."
7. The Rules, 1989 cast upon the authorities to follow the
procedure whereas, the impugned order is silent whether
such procedure has been followed or not. Even in the return,
the State has not provided any material to substantiate their
stand or the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1989 has
been followed or not. It is well settled that if the particular duty
has been cast upon the authority, he has to act according to
the prescribed method only and any deviation from such
procedure, will vitiate the decision making process of the
authority. It is pertinent to mention here that the Thana
incharge has recorded the finding that the prisoner may
abscond, it is purely hypothetical without any foundation led
before this Court to substantiate the said averments, as such,
the same cannot be accepted by this Court.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as
the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
and taking into consideration that no material has been placed
on record by the respondent to substantiate the averments
made in the order, the order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gariaband (C.G.)
is quashed. The petitioner is held to be entitled to leave for the
period prayed by him in his application. The District Magistrate
and the Superintendent of Jail, are directed to do the needful
in the matter within a period of 15 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
9. It is made clear that on completion of the leave period, the
petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities
immediately and shall not commit any offence or create any
law and order situation during the period of leave.
10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
