Chattisgarh High Court

Domendra Lodhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2022

                                 1

                                                               NAFR
      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
              Judgment reserved on :      06/12/2021
              Judgment delivered on: 11/02/2022

                      WPCR No. 502 of 2021
   Domendra Lodhi S/o Tilak Ram Lodhi Aged About 24
    Years   R/o   Village    Bajguda,   Police   Station
    Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                    Petitioner
                              Versus
  1. State   Of   Chhattisgarh Though   The  Principal
     Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Mantralaya,
     Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District
     Raipur Chhattisgarh.
  2. The Jail And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh The
     Director General Prisoner, Jail Road, Raipur,
     District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
  3. Jail Superintendent        Central   Jail,     Durg,    District
     Durg Chhattisgarh.
  4. State Of Chhattisgarh           Through The      Collector /
     District    Magistrate,            District       Rajnandgaon
     Chhattisgarh.
  5. Superintendent      Of     Police    District        Rajnandgaon
     Chhattisgarh.
                                                    Respondents



For Petitioner                : Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For State                     : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.


      Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

Order on Board

11/02/2022

1. Heard.

2. The present petition has been filed under article

226 of the Constitution of India challenging the

order dated 21.05.2021 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 & 201 of the IPC

and is languishing in jail since 06.10.2019. 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

21.05.2021. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved

against that order, the instant writ petition has

been filed.

4. Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, 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 statement of the

villagers and public representative have not been

recorded by the respondent authorities, nowhere is

mentioned that if the petitioner may be released on

parole, the public nuisance is being created,

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. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned Government Advocate

appearing for the State/Respondents has supported

the impugned order and submits that the report of

Superintendent of Police is against 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 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 07.05.2021, annexed as

Annexure R3, which is as under:

mDr caanh ds 10 fnu vLFkkbZ eqfDr ds laca/k esa ihfMr i{k ds O;fDr xuir ta?ksy

firk Lo- enu ta?ksy mez 49 o"kZ lkfdu cktxqMk Fkkuk NqbZ[knku ftyk

jktuanxkao }kjk vius dFku esa mDr canh dks vLFkkbZ eqfDr NqVVh ugha NksMus

dFku fn;s gS dFku layXu gSAa

mDr canh ds vLFkkbZ eqfDr ds laca/k esa xkze izfrf" Br O;fDr ljiap xzke iapk;r

cktxqMk larks"k dqekj pansy firk vadkyw jke pansy mez 48 o"kZ lkfdu cktxqMk

Fkkuk NqbZ[knku ,oa ikj[k nkl dksljs firk bZ'oj nkl dksljs mez 36 o"kZ lkfdu

cktxqMk Fkkuk NqbZ[knku }kjk vius vius dFku esa mDr canh ds vLFkkbZ eqfDr

NqVVh vkus ij vkifRr ugha gksuk laca/kh dFku fn;s gS dFku layXu gSaA

Fkkuk izHkkjh NqbZ[knku ftyk jktuanxkao N-x- dk vfHker gS] fd ihfMr i{k ds

dFku ls lger gksrs gq;s mDr canh dks vLFkkbZ eqfDr NqVVh ugha NksMus dk

vfHker fn;s gSaA

iqfyl vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh [kSjkx<] ftyk jktuanxkao N-x- dk vfHker gS fd

Fkkuk izHkkjh NqbZ[knku ds vfHker ls lger gksrs gq;s mDr canh dks vLFkkbZ eqfDr

NqVVh ugha NksMus dk vfHker fn;s gSAa

vo,o Fkkuk izHkkjh NqbZ[knku o iqfyl vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh [kSjkx<, ftyk

jktuanxkao ds vfHker ls lger gksrs gq;s mDr canh dks vLFkkbZ eqfDr 10 fnol

dh lk/kkjk.k NqVVh ugha NksMus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA

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..."

9. It has not been shown in the report submitted

by Superintendent of Police (Annexures R/3)

that convict has any criminal antecedent or he

1 (2001) 6 SCC 260

is a hardened criminal and is likely to involve

in similar nature of offence.

10. Looking to the Annexure R/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

Additional District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon

(Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed in