Man Vishram @ Gendu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6479 Chatt

                                              1


              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   WPCR No. 346 of 2022
     • Man Vishram @ Gendu S/o Shri Bhikham Sahu, Aged About 57
       Years R/o. Village Kapsi, P.S. Amleshwar, District Durg
       (Chhattisgarh) Through Son Tridev Sahu, S/o Man Vishram @
       Gendu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Kapsi, P.S.
       Amleshwar District Durg Chhattisgarh
                                                                           ---- Petitioner
                                          Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary,
        Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya,
        Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
     2. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District Durg
        (Chhattisgarh)
     3. The District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)
     4. The Superintendent Of Police Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)
                                                                      ---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner                      : Shri SP Sahu, Advocate
For respondents/State               : Shri Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 31.10.2022.

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated 03.3.2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by District Magistrate, Durg(CG), whereby, application for releasing the petitioner on parole, has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 304(Part-II) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years along with fine by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (CG) in Session Trial No.96/1999. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 10.01.2020. After he became entitled for benefit of temporary release under

the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (for short 'Rules 1989'), he filed application for grant of temporary release/parole, which has been rejected by District Magistrate, Durg vide impugned order dated 03.3.2022 which is perse illegal and against the provisions of the Rules 1989. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent-authorities for release of the petitioner on temporary release/parole.

4. Learned counsel for the State while referring to the reply filed by the State, would submit that the application of the petitioner has been strictly considered in accordance with law and since the police have raised objection stating therein that on being granted parole to the petitioner, he may commit further heinous offence and family members of the victim have also raised their objection and therefore, his application has been dismissed by the District Magistrate. Hence, impugned order 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 relevant 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. In view of the 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 in the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) and reports of the Station House Officer (Annexure-R/2) and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Distt. Durg (Annexure-R/3), it has been mentioned that proposed sureties of the petitioner are ready to keep the petitioner in their control. It has also been mentioned that Surpanch of the concerned village panchayat has also stated no objection to grant leave/parole to the petitioner. Though family members of the victim and the police have raised objection for grant of temporary release/parole to the petitioner on the ground that he may again commit heinous crime, but they have not shown any appropriate/legal ground in respect of their apprehension that the petitioner would again commit heinous offence, if he would be granted temporary release/parole. The reasons mentioned by the District Magistrate for not granting parole to the petitioner are not seem to be appropriate and it cannot be considered as absolute bar to grant parole to the petitioner, which is the right created under Rule 4 & 6 f the Rules 1989, in favour of the convict, as has been stated in the preceding paragraphs.

14. The Rules 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 Rules would be frustrated. Therefore, in the facts of instant case, the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole as per Rules of 1989.

15. Accordingly, the District Magistrate is directed to issue necessary release order granting temporary leave/parole to the petitioner for the period applied for in accordance with aforesaid Act/Rules, 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 seek surety as provided in Section 4(e) of the Rules 1989.

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

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini