Sevakram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5932 Chatt

                                              1


              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   WPCR No. 320 of 2021

     • Sevakram S/o Sunder Lal, Aged About 41 Years R/o Aamgaon,
       P.S. Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Through
       Nearest Friend Shyamu Yadav, S/o Milan Yadav, Aged About
       35 Years, R/o Indira Nagar, Ward No. 08, Dhaur, Selud, Durg,
       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 Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon
        Chhattisgarh
     4. The Superintendent Of                     Police      Rajnandgaon,          District
        Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Shri SP Sahu, Advocate For respondents/State : Shri Gurudev I Sharan, Govt. Advocate

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 22.9.2022.

1. Heard.

2. The present petition is against order dated 25.3.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (CG), whereby, application for release of the petitioner on parole, has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is life convict and he is in jail since 14.12.2014, he has become entitled for benefit of release on leave under Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short 'Rules 1989'). On this basis, the application for grant of leave was filed by the petitioner, which was not allowed by the respondent No.3. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondents for release on leave of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and objection raised by the police authorities, release of the petitioner was not allowed, as it may lead to law and order problems and also there is a chance of absconding of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the materials available on record.

6. 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 powers conferred upon it under the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900. The 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. If the Note appended to Rule 6(a) is taken into consideration, it clearly reflects that there is only one ground on which leave can be refused by the District Magistrate and it is only in a case where he feels that release of the petitioner is fraught with danger to the public safety and thereafter, under no other circumstances, the

leave can be refused as a matter of routine without cogent reasons. Rule 6(a) and Note appended thereto reads as under:-

"6. Sanctioning Authority for first leave.- (a) 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. The District Magistrate shall enter in the warrant the number of days that will be required for the journeys by the shortest practicable route to and from the place at which during his leave the prisoner proposes to reside or if he proposes to visit more than one place, the fartherest place from the Jail which he proposed to visit.

Note.- The District Magistrate is responsible for the proper carrying out of these instructions. He may of course, consult the District Superintendent of Police on the advisability of granting the leave. The Superintendent of Police should also obtain the opinion of the Gram Panchayat of the village where the prisoner resided before conviction and send to the District Magistrate along with his report. But the responsibility for the action is that of the District Magistrate. He should use his discretion and should refuse to grant leave only in cases in which he satisfied that release is fraught with danger to the public safety. Security should be demanded only when it is really necessary, for example, when there is reasonable apprehension that the prisoner will break leave. When security is required, the District Magistrate of the place where the surety resides should be asked by the releasing District Magistrate to accept the surety and not call the surety to his own headquarters. If the prisoner intends to visit another district, where his near relatives reside, the concerning Magistrate shall make necessary enquiries from the District Magistrate of that District before sanctioning the leave.

8. In the light of aforesaid principles, if the order dated 25.3.2021 is perused along with documents filed (Annexure - R1 & R3), this is the first offence of the petitioner/detainee and there is no criminal antecedent reported against him. In this case, the victim and the petitioner/accused belong to same family and the family members have not raised any objection, whereas, it has been wrongly mentioned in the impugned order passed by District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon that elder brother of the petitioner/detainee has made objection to grant him leave. It is also

evident from the memo of Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon (Annexure-R/3) that reputed person, namely, Muksudhan S/o. Bisram Verma, who is the resident of the petitioner's village, also has no objection to grant him leave, despite that the learned District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon only on the basis of objection raised by the police authorities, has refused to grant him leave/parole, which is not as per the object of rules.

9. In the case of Poonam Lata v M.L. Wadhawan and others, (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".

10. 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. Doe12.

In the case of Poonam Lata v M.L. Wadhawan and others, (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".

11. 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.

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 theirfamily 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.

12. In Dadu alias Tulsidas vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (8) SCC 437, the Supreme Court held as under:

"6. Parole is not a suspension of sentence. The convict continue to be serving the sentence despite granting of parole under the statute, rules, jail manual or the Government orders. "Parole" means the release of a prisoner temporarily for a special purpose before the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour and return to jail. It is a release from jail, prison or other internment after actually being in jail serving part of sentence."

13. Considering aforesaid facts situations, only because the objection raised by the Police authorities, the same could not be used as an 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.

14. 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 seek security as provided in Section 4 (e) of the Rules, 1989.

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

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini