Preetam Lal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3477 Chatt

                                 1

                                                              NAFR
      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                      WPCR No. 192 of 2021
   Preetam Lal S/o Maksudan Aged About 34 Years R/o
    Gram Kasari, Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh
    District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                   ­­­­ Petitioner
                              Versus
  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home
     Department (Jail) Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi
     Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, District
     Raipur Chhattisgarh.
  2. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District
     Durg Chhattisgarh.
  3. The   District   Collector          Rajnandgaon        District
     Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                   ­­­­ Respondents



For Petitioner                : Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv.
For State                     : Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, PL


      Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

Order on Board

06.12.2021

1. Heard.

2. The present petition has been filed under article

226 of the Constitution of India challenging the

order dated 18.06.2020 passed by the Additional

District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) whereby the

application filed by the petitioner under

Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989 for grant

of leave (parole) has been rejected.

3. The petitioner is a prisoner who has been convicted

for the offence under Sections 302,340­B, 34 of the

IPC and is languishing in jail since 17.10.2013. He

made an application for grant of leave under

Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989 but the

said application was rejected by the Additional

District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon vide order dated

18.06.2020. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved

against that order, the instant writ petition has

been filed.

4. Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner would submit that the impugned order

is arbitrary, illegal and against the law as the

application has not been considered in touchstone

of the Rules. As the petitioner fulfills all

conditions and eligibility required for grant of

leave under Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule

1989, he is entitled to be released on parole. It

is next contended that the petitioner has been

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for more than the

minimum period of three years required for leave

eligibility and has served the minimum period

required for granting leave. There is no clinching

material available on record to show that the

release of the petitioner on leave is fraught with

danger to public safety, therefore, in the interest

of justice, the impugned orders to be set aside and

the petition deserves to be allowed. In support of

his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner

placed reliance in the matter of Rakesh Shende Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. passed in WPCR No.

29/2016 by this Court.

5. Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, PL appearing for the

State/Respondents has supported the impugned order.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. It is clear from the material available on record

that petitioner filed an application before the

Additional District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon and the

learned Additional District Magistrate forwarded it

to the Superintendent of Police and the

Superintendent of Police, in turn, made inquiry and

submitted his report on 15.04.2020, annexed as

Annexure P/3, which is as under:­

ÞmDr canh ds 10 fnol vLFkkbZ eqfDr NqÍh ds laca/k esa ihfMr i{k ds

laca/k esa xzkeokfl;ksa ls irklkth yh xbZ] xzkeh.kksa us crk;k fd ?kVuk i'pkr

o"kZ 2013 ls ihfMr i{k nqxZ pyk x;k Fkk ftldh dksbZ Li"V tkudkjh ugha gSA

mDr canh ds vLFkkbZ eqfDr NqÍh ds laca/k esa xzke fuoklh cykjke lkgw firk

lhrkjke lkgw mez 50 o"kZ lkfdu dlkjh pkSdh eksgkjk Fkkuk Mksaxjx< }kjk vius

dFku esa mDr canh ds vLFkkbZ eqfDr NqÍh vkus ij dkbZ vkifRr ugha gksuk dk

dFku fn;s gSA

mDr canh ds vLFkkbZ eqfDr NqÍh ds laca/k esa tekurnkj ¼1½ edlwnu lkgw

firk Qxqvk lkgw mez 60 o"kZ o tekurnkj ¼2½ Qxuh ckbZ ifr edlwnu lkgw

mez 55 o"kZ lkfdu dlkjh Fkkuk Mksaxjx< }kjk vius vius dFku esa mDr canh

dk tekurnkj gksuk o canh dks vius fu;arz.k esa j[kus dk dFku fn;s gSaA

Fkkuk izHkkjh Mksaxjx< ftyk jktuanxko dk vfHker gS] ds vijk/k dh

xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq;s mDr canh dks vLFkkbZ eqfDr NqÍh ugha NksMus dk vfHker

fn;s gSaAß

8. This Court in the matter of Rakesh Shende Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh & Others in Writ Petition

(Cr.) No. 29/2016 vide order dated 18.11.2016

held in paras 22 & 23 as under:­

"22. As noticed herein above, the power of parole has been conferred by the rules to the District Magistrate and the post of District Magistrate is manned in the State of Chhattisgarh by a member of Indian Administrative Service. Therefore, the District Magistrate is required to exercise the power to consider the application for grant of parole. He has to take into consideration the object and need to grant parole to the convicted prisoners by applying their mind and come to a conclusion judiciously. The order passed by the District Magistrate in the instant case would show the complete non­application of mind, as by a cyclostyle order only name and number of prisoner has been inserted and it has been signed by the Additional District Magistrate. The manner in which the order has been passed by the District Magistrate in a mechanical manner is suggestive of betrayal of the confidence which the rule making authority reposed in the District Magistrate in conferring upon him to exercise the power to grant parole.

23. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the following binding observation made by the Supreme Court in the matter of

Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab & Others1 "16..In the system of Indian democratic governance as contemplated by the Constitution, senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to mortgage there own discretion, volition and decision making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. The conduct Rules of Central Government Services command the civil servants to maintain at tall times absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. No government servant shall in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of power conferred on him act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior..."

09.In Annexure P/2, it is reported by In­Charge,

Police Station Dongargah, District Rajnandgaon

that except this case no other criminal case is

pending against the petitioner. It has not been

shown in both the Annexures (Annexures P/2 & P/3)

that convict has any criminal antecedent or he is

a hardened criminal.

10.Looking to the Annexures P/2 & P/3 and principles

and observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Trilochan Das(Supra), I am of the

considered opinion that the order passed by the

1 (2001) 6 SCC 260

Additional District Magistrate Rajnandgaon

(Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed in exercise

of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India and is accordingly

quashed. It is directed that the respondents shall

consider the case of the petitioner to grant of

him the privilege of release/parole in accordance

with law indicated principles laid down in the

matter of Rakesh Shinde (Supra) & Trilochan Das

(Supra) within forty five days from the date of

production of a copy of this order.

11.The writ petition is allowed to the extent

indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Sd/­ (Rajani Dubey) Judge V/­