Chattisgarh High Court
Ramkumar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 307 of 2021
Ramkumar Nishad, S/o Tekram Nishad, Convict No. 6151/21, Aged
about 36 Years, Lodged in Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of
Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
4. Additional District Magistrate, Raiur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
5. District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
6. Station House Officer, Police Station - Dharsiwa, Distt. Raipur
(C.G.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate.
For Non-applicant : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
25-07-2022
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the
order dated 19.03.2021 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Raipur,
whereby the application for releasing the petitioner/ Convict on parole of
12 days including journey period has been rejected.
2. The petitioner is a Prisoner, who has been convicted for
commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC
and is languishing in jail since about 2 ½ years. He made an application
for grant of leave under Rule 4 and 6 of Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave
Rule, 1989 (henceforth "Rule 1989"). On the said application, District
Magistrate called report from Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur and
in turn Senior Superintendent of Police called report from concerned
Station House Officer and Station House Officer in turn, submitted
adverse report stating therein that the Gram Panchayat has raised an
objection with regard to grant of leave on the ground that if the petitioner
is released, then there may be possibility of dispute in the village.
Relying upon report, which was forwarded by Senior Superintendent of
Police, Raipur, learned Additional District Magistrate, Raipur by its order
dated 19.03.2021 rejected the application reiterating the objection of
Gram Panchayat, that on being released the petitioner, there may be
possibility of dispute in the village.
3. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved against that order, the instant
writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that application for
grant of parole/leave has been dismissed by the competent authority
without any application of mind and only on the basis of objection raised
by the Gram Panchayat that on being released the petitioner, there is
possibility of dispute in the village, whereas aforesaid objection raised by
Gram Panchayat has not been based on any cogent facts and reasons,
whereas, co-accused of the same crime namely Rahul Nishad has
already been granted parole. It is further submitted that Superintendent
(Jail), Central Jail, Raipur, after finding other conditions as provided in
Section 4 of the Rules, 1989, had forwarded an application filed by the
applicant alongwith his recommendation, despite that, Additional District
Magistrate, Raipur has dismissed the application without considering the
object of granting parole to jail inmates and as has been observed by
Supreme Court in various cases and also the observations of Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the matter of Rakesh Shende v. State of
Chhattisgarh & others 1, wherein it has been held that all aspects of
1 Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 29 of 2016, decided on 18.11.2016
criminal justice fall under the umbrella of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, impugned order deserves to be set
aside and the petition may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State controverted
the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit
that applicant has been convicted for the offence of murder and has
been sentenced for life imprisonment, therefore, objection raised by
the Gram Panchayat could not be overlooked and on the basis of such
objection, learned District Magistrate has declined to exercise his
power for grant of temporary release of the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
submissions made hereinabove and also perused the material
available on record.
7. 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 power 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 Rule,
1989'. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 provides with the conditions of
leave, which reads thus :-
"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 offence 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; and
(e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of
the Releasing Authority if such security is
demanded by the Releasing Authority."
8. Rule 6 provides that "if the District Magistrate, after making such
enquiry as he may consider necessary, is satisfied that the request for
grant of leave can be granted without detriment to public interest, he
shall issue to the Superintendent a duly signed and sealed warrant in
Form 'A' to the prisoner.
9. Note appended with Rule 6(a) provides that while considering
the matter, District Magistrate may consult with District Superintendent
of Police, who would also obtain the opinion of Gram Panchayat.
Perusal of note attached to Rule 6(a) clearly reflects that there is only
one ground on which leave can be refused by the District Magistrate
i.e. 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
any cogent reason.
10. The responsibility for the action under Rule 1989 has been
entrusted to the District Magistrate, hence, it is expected that such
responsibility be complied with considering the object of granting
parole.
11. The object of granting parole is to make necessary efforts to
rehabilitate a convict prisoner in the main stream of society based on
"Karuna" (compassion) as well as on human consideration.
12. In the case of Poonam Lata v M.L. Wadhawan and others 2,
the Supreme Court while highlighting the object of parole has
observed that "release on parole is a wing of the reformative process
and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform
himself into a useful citizen. Parole is thus a grant of partial liberty or
lessening of restrictions to a convict prisoner".
13. 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.
2 (1987) 3 SCC 347
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.
14. In the instant case, application for grant of leave/parole filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed only on the ground that Gram
Panchayat has raised an objection that if he will come in the village,
then there may be a situation of dispute in the village but in the memo
issued by the Sarpanch in this regard, any fact or reasons has not
been mentioned that why such a situation will arise, whereas as per
learned counsel for the petitioner, co-accused namely Rahul Nishad of
the same crime has been granted parole. It is also pertinent to
mention here that Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur has
recommended for grant of parole to the petitioner and as per report of
Station House Officer, the petitioner is not a habitual offender, he has
no any criminal antecedents and this is first crime reported against
him. Moreover, Nand Kumar Nishad, who is real brother of the
petitioner and Seetaram Nishad, who is also his brother in family
relation have given an undertaking that if the petitioner is released on
parole, then he will not commit any criminal act and he will be in their
supervision and control. They have also given undertaking that they
will ensure that applicant will surrender after completion of
leave/parole period.
15. Considering aforesaid facts situations, only because the
objection raised by the Gram Panchayat, the same could not be used
as a absolute barrier to grant leave to the petitioner, which is right
created under Section 4 & 6 of the Rules, 1989, as has been stated in
preceding paragraphs. Rules of 1989 have been enacted with certain
object, therefore, application for grant of parole should be considered
bearing in mind to those objects. Rejection of such application on any
of the ground, which is not reasonable, the object of framing aforesaid
Rule would be frustrated. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the
petitioner is entitled to be released on parole as per Rules of 1989.
16. Accordingly, the District Magistrate is directed to issue necessary
release order granting leave / parole 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. The District Magistrate while allowing the
application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may also sought
security as provided in Section 4 (e) of the Rules, 1989.
17. In the result, the petition stands disposed of with the above
observation/direction.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge
D/-
