Mansaram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6375 Chatt

                                              1


              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   WPCR No. 301 of 2022
     • Mansaram Sahu S/o Devdhar Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o
       Rehuntakala, Thana Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District -
       Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
                                                                           ---- Petitioner
                                          Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Home
        Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
        Chhattisgrh.
     2. Collector Cum/and District Magistrate, District Kabirdham
        Chhattisgarh.
     3. Superintendent Of Police, Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
     4. Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Durg Chhattisgarh.
     5. Station House Officer Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham
        Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate For respondents/State : Ms. Akshara Amit, Panel Lawyer

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 19.10.2022.

1. Heard.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 12.8.2021 passed by Collector - District Magistrate, Distt., Kabirdham (CG), whereby, application for release of son of the petitioner, namely Uttam Sahu/detainee on parole, has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that detainee Uttam Sahu is a life convict, he has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.29/2018 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 302 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and is languishing in jail since 19.4.2018. After fulfillment of the all the criteria, detainee Uttam Sahu has filed an application for

temporary release/parole under Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short 'Rules 1989'), which has been rejected by the District Magistrate vide impugned order dated 12.8.2021, which is illegal and against the provisions of the Rules 1989. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate direction may be issue to the respondent-authorities for release of detainee Uttam Sahu, son of the petitioner, on temporary release/parole.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that detainee Uttam Sahu has been convicted for life imprisonment for commission of offence of rape and murder, that too, of a minor girl, therefore, family members of the deceased, village Panchayat and the Police have raised objection to grant him parole. Hence, order impugned passed by the District Magistrate, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions and perused all the materials available on record.

6. Having considered the rival contentions put forth on behalf of either side, it is pertinent to mention here 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. Said Rules in the State of Chhattisgarh are known as 'The Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989'. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1989 deals with conditions of the leave, which reads as under:

"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."

7. Rule 6 of the Rules 1989 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.

8. Note appended to 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 reflect that there is only one ground on which leave can be refused by the District Magistrate, i.e. only in a case where he is satisfied that the release of the petitioner is fraught with danger to the public safety and under no other circumstances, the leave can be refused as a matter of routine without cogent reasons.

9. The responsibility for the action under the Rules 1989 has been entrusted to the District Magistrate, hence, it is expected that such responsibility be complied with considering the object of granting parole.

10. 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.

11. In the case of Poonam Lata vs. ML Wadhawan and Ors. Reported in (1987) 3 SCC 347, 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."

12. Similar matter had come up before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2022 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, 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.

13. Considering aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, if it is considered on the facts of the instant case, then it is found that family members of the victim, concerned village panchayat and the police have raised objection for grant of temporary release/parole to the son of the petitioner, which is evident from the memo written by Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham to District Magistrate Kabirdham (Page-11). But as per the report of the Station House Officer, Kunda Distt. Kabirdham, there is no criminal antecedent reported against detainee Uttam Sahu and as per the Memo dated 24.7.2021 of Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, sureties namely Mansharam Sahu and Gendlal Sahu are also ready to furnish their sureties in favour of the detainee and they are also ready to keep him under their control and after completion of the parole period they will get him surrendered in jail. The application of detainee Uttam Sahu for grant of parole has been rejected on the basis of objection of the village panchayat, family members and the police, but they have not stated any reasonable ground with regard to their apprehension. Hence, without mentioning any proper reason, such reasons on the basis of which the application has been rejected, cannot be considered as valid and appropriate reason to deny parole to the son of the petitioner Uttam Sahu, as parole is a right created under Rule 4 & 6 of the Rules, 1989 in favour of the convict, as has been stated in preceding paragraphs. The Rules of 1989 have been enacted with certain object, therefore, application for grant of parole should be considered bearing in mind those objects. By 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 petition is partly allowed.

14. Accordingly, it is directed to the Collector/ District Magistrate to reconsider the application for grant of leave/parole to the detainee Uttam Sahu S/o. Mansaram Sahu, for the period applied for, considering the object and purposes of all the provisions, as has been discussed above, within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

15. In the result, the petition stands disposed of with the above observation/direction.

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini