Trinath Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1082 Chatt

                                    1

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPCR No. 415 of 2021

      Trinath Baghel S/o Ankur Baghel Aged About 30 Years Lodged
      In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---
                                                              Petitioner

                                Versus

   1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of
      Home, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur
      Chhattisgarh

   2. Jail Superintendent     Central          Jail   Raipur   District   Raipur
      Chhattisgarh

   3. Senior Superintendent        of        Police   Raipur   District   Raipur
      Chhattisgarh

   4. District Magistrate Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

   5. Additional District Magistrate Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

   6. Thana In-Charge Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur District
      Raipur Chhattisgarh                         --- Respondents

For the Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Dy. Advocate Gen.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

28 .02.2022

1. The present petition is against the order dated

27.02.2021 whereby the application to release the

applicant on parole of 10 days has been rejected by the

Additional District Magistrate, Raipur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is lodged in jail since 08.03.2015 and is

entitled to get parole as per the C.G. Prisoners leave

Rules, 1989. It is contended that having entitled to be

released on parole, he filed an application for parole of

10 days which was approved by the Superintendent of

Jail Raipur and on 30.09.2020 the application was

forwarded to the District Magistrate Raipur. The District

Magistrate on the basis of statements recorded of the

family members of victim has rejected the application on

27.02.2021. It is contended that the main rejection was

the basis of the statement recorded of the mother and

father of deceased whose son was murdered by the

petitioner and others. It is further contended that such

refusal does not find place in Rule 4(C ) of the C.G.

Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.

3. In the reply of State, it is stated that the petitioner

stands convicted for the offence u/s 302 of IPC,

therefore, having raised the objection by the family

members of the victim, the City Superintendent of Police

agreed with the report of Incharge of Police Station

Saraswati Nagar Raipur and opined that it would not be

appropriate to release the petitioner on parole.

Consequently, the order of rejection for grant of parole

for 10 days was passed by the Addl. District Magistrate

based on the opinion given by the Senior Superintendent

of Police, Raipur,

4. Having considered the rival contentions put forth on

behalf of either side what is relevant at this juncture is

that the State Government has enacted specific rules in

respect of grant of leave to the prisoners in exercise of

its powers conferred upon it under the provisions of the

Prisoners Act, 1900. The said Rules in the State of

Chhattisgarh are known as 'The Chhattisgarh Prisoner's

Leave Rules, 1989'. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 deals

with the conditions of leave. For ready reference the said

clause is reproduced herein below :

"4. Conditions of Leave.- The prisoners shall be

granted leave under sub-section (1) of Section 31-A of

the Act on the following conditions, namely :-

(a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31- A of the Act;

(b) He has not committed any offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave;

(c) The releasing authority must be satisfied that the leave may be granted without detriment to the public interest;

(d) He gives in writing to the Releasing Authority the place or places which he intends to visit during the period of his leave and undertake not to visit any other place during such period without obtaining prior permission of the Releasing Authority in that behalf;

(e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Releasing Authority if such security is demanded by the Releasing Authority."

5. If we take into consideration the Note attached to Rule

6(a) it clearly reflects that there is only one ground on

which leave can be refused by the District Magistrate

and it is only in case where he is satisfied that the

release of the prisoner is fraught with danger to the

public safety and under no other circumstances can the

leave be refused as a matter of routine without cogent

reasons. Further perusal of Rule 6 also clearly depicts

that before the District Magistrate takes a decision on

the application for grant of temporary leave he has to

consult the District Superintendent of Police who in turn

has to obtain the opinion of the Gram Panchayat of the

village where the prisoner resides.

6. In Dadu alias Tulsidas Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (8)

SCC 437, the Supreme Court held as under :

"6. Parole is not a suspension of sentence. The convict continues to be serving the sentence despite granting of parole under the statute, rules, jail manual or the Government Orders.

"Parole" means the release of a prisoner temporarily for a special purpose before the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour and return to jail. It is a release from jail, prison or other internment after actually being in jail serving part of sentence

7. Similar matter had come up before the Madhya Pradesh

High Court in 2002 and relying upon the aforesaid

judgment of the Supreme Court, the Madhya Pradesh

High Court in the case of Jeevan Singh Verma Vs. State

of M.P. & Others, 2002 (1) M.P.L.J. 347, Hon'ble Justice

Dipak Misra, as he then was, while deciding the case

after referring to the provisions of the Prisoners Act held

as under :

"7. Now the question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner should be granted the benefit of parole or temporary release. In this context I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Inder Singh and Anr. v. The State (Delhi Administration) 1978 SCC (Cri) 564 wherein their Lordships emphasized on rehabilitation and quoted a passage from Lewis Moore with approval. The said passage reads as under :

"You cannot rehabilitate a man through brutality and disrespect. Regardless of the crime a man may commit, he still is a human being and has feelings. And the main reason most inmates in prison today disrespect their keepers, is because they themselves (the inmates) are disrespected and are not treated like human beings. I myself have witnessed brutal attacks upon inmates and have suffered a few myself, if he becomes violent. But many a time this

restraining has turned into a brutal beating. Does this type of treatment bring about respect and rehabilitation? No.! It only instills hostility and causes alienation toward the prison officials from the inmate or inmates involved.

If you treat a man like an animal, then you must expect him to act like one. For every action, there is reaction. This is only human nature. And in order for an inmate to act like a human being, you must treat him as such. Treating him like an animal will only get negative results from him."

In the aforesaid case the Apex Court laid emphasis on the concept of 'Karuna' and directed that parole should be allowed to the convicts if they show responsibility and trustworthiness. To quote-

" Parole will be allowed to them so that their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up."

Thus parole has been treated as a curative strategy keeping in view the human dignity which is the quintessence of Article 21 of the Constitution.

8. Here in the instant case, the primary ground for rejection

of parole was based on the objections raised by the

mother and father of the deceased wherein the

statements would show that both the mother and father

objected to parole and expressed their opinion not to

release the petitioner on parole. Apart from this

document, no objection given by one Prakash Jagat, Who

is Councilor of Ward No.23 wherein the family of accused

resides, has been filed. He has given an undertaking that

if the petitioner is released on parole, he would lead a

normal life and would not commit any criminal act.

Another undertaking has been given by a relative of the

petitioner namely Jeturam who stands as a surety that if

the petitioner is released he shall not commit any further

offence.

9. In such facts situation, only because the objection has

been made by the relatives of the victim, the same

cannot be used as a barrier to get leave which is a right

created under section 4 & 6 of the Rules 1983. The order

of the District Magistrate is also primarily based on the

ground that the objection has been raised by the family

members of the victim, therefore, the parole application

has been rejected.

10. The rules of 1989 have been enacted with certain object

and rejection on any ground which is not reasonable, the

object would be shelved under the circumstances if the

rejection of leave is upheld. Therefore, in the facts of

the case, the petitioner is entitled to be released on

parole as per Rules of 1989.

11. Accordingly, the District Magistrate is directed to issue

necessary release order granting leave to the petitioner

for the period applied for within a period of 15 days from

the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

12. In the result, the petition stands disposed of with the

above observation/direction.

Sd/-

GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao