Chattisgarh High Court
Rajendra Prasad @ Lalu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 27/01/2022
Judgment delivered on: 11/03/2022
WPCR No. 335 of 2021
Rajendra Prasad @ Lalu S/o Shri Manharan Khairwar
Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kalmiduggu,
Dhanuharpara Post Jamnipali, Police Station Darri,
District Korba Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home (Jail), Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director General Prisons And Correctional
Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter Prisons and
Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. The CollectorCumDistrict Magistrate District
Korba Chhattisgarh.
4. The Superintendent Of Police District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
5. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Adv.
For State : Shri Ayaz Naved, G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Order on Board
1. Heard
2. The present petition has been filed under article
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
order dated 23.11.2020 passed by the Collectorcum
District Magistrate, Korba(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 354(A)(1), 506, 04
of IPC and is languishing in jail since 03.08.2018.
He made an application for grant of leave under
Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989 but the
said application was rejected by the Collectorcum
District Magistrate, Korba vide order dated
23.11.2020. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved
against that order, the instant writ petition has
been filed.
4. Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, 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.
Release of the petitioner on leave is not fraught
with danger to public safety, therefore, in the
interest of justice, the impugned order 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 Ayaz Naved, 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
CollectorcumDistrict Magistrate, Korba and the
CollectorcumDistrict Magistrate forwarded it to
the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent
of Police, in turn, made inquiry and submitted his
report dated 25.09.2020, annexed as Annexure P/4,
which is as under:
Þfo"k;kafdr ,oa lanfHkZr irz dk voyksdu djus dk d"V djsaA ftlesa canh
dzekad [email protected] uke jktsUnz izlkn firk Jh eugj.k mez 27 o"kZ lk- fuoklh
xzke dyehMqXxq /kuqgkjikjk iks- teuhikyh Fkkuk njhZ ftyk dksjck ds isjksy
vodk'k vkosnu dh tkap Fkkuk njhZ ls djk;k x;kA canh dk tekur canh ds
firk eugj.k [kSjokj firk Lo- fjVw [kSjokj mez 60 o"kZ lk- /kuqgkjikjk njhZ
ds }kjk fy;k x;k gSA okMZ ik"kZn ds }kjk canh dks isjksy vodk'k ij NksMs tkus
ds laca/k esa ik"kZn ,oa okMZoklh ds }kjk vkifRr fd;k x;k gS A canh /kkjk
354¼d½¼,d½] 506, 04 Hkknfo tSls xaHkhj vijk/k dk vijk/kh gS ,oa okMZ ik"kZn
ds vkifRr ntZ djkus ds QyLo#i canh dks isjksy vodk'k esa NksMus ij Qjkj
gksus ls badkj ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vr% canh dzekad [email protected] uke jktsUnz izlkn firk Jh eugj.k mez 27
o"kZ lk- fuoklh xzke dyehMqXxq /kuqgkjikjk iks- teuhikyh Fkkuk njhZ ftyk
dksjck dks isjksy vodk'k fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa vuq ' kal k ugh djrs gq,
izfrosnu voyksdukFkZ izsf"kr gSAß
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
1 (2001) 6 SCC 260
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 P/4)
that convict has any criminal antecedent or he
is a hardened criminal and is likely to involve
in similar nature of offence.
10. Looking to the Annexure P/1 and principles and
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Trilochan Das(Supra), this Court is of
the considered opinion that the order passed by
the CollectorcumDistrict Magistrate, Korba
(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/
