Chattisgarh High Court
Ruma Majumdar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 126 of 2022
Ruma Majumdar, W/o Taapas @ Supriyo, Aged About 35
Years, Prisoner No. 131/57 R/o Village Staff Quarter Koriya
Coalary P.S. Chirmiri District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Through
Deepa Chakrawarty W/o Deepak Chakrawarty, Aged 55
Years, R/o Village Ajirma P.S. & Tehsil Jainagar, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur
(Chhattisgarh).
2. Collector/ District Magistrate Koriya Baikunthpur, District
Koriya Chhattisgarh.
3. Superintendent of Police, Koriya Baikunthpur District Koriya
Chhattisgarh.
4. Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Ambikapur District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Adv.
For State : Shri Sushil Sahu, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Order on Board
02.02.2022
Proceedings through video conferencing.
1. Heard.
2. The present petition has been filed under article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.09.2021
passed by the District Magistrate of District- Koriya,
Baikunthpur (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 Section 302, 34 of the IPC and has been
sentenced for Life Imprisonment and is languishing in jail for
about 7 years. She made an application for grant of leave
under Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989 but the said
application was rejected by the District Magistrate of District-
Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) vide order dated 24.09.2021.
Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved against the said order,
the instant writ petition has been filed.
4. Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the impugned order is malafide,
arbitrary, illegal and contrary to 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, she is entitled to be released on parole. It is next
contended that petitioner is in jail for about 7 years and
there is no 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. Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer appearing for the
State/Respondents has supported the impugned order and
denied all the adverse allegations made by the petitioner.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. It is clear from the material available on record that the
petitioner has filed application before the District Magistrate
of District- Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) and the learned
District Magistrate called a report from Superintendent of
Police, District- Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.).
8. The Superintendent of Police has submitted the report
whereby he has objected the release of the petitioner based
on recommendation of the concerned Station House Officer.
Relying upon the said report submitted by the
Superintendent of Police and the objection of the victim, the
District Magistrate passed the impugned order for not
releasing the petitioner on leave.
9. 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 non-application 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
1 (2001) 6 SCC 260
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..."
10. Looking to the 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 District Magistrate (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 him the privilege of release/parole in accordance
with law and 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
Ruchi/-
