Allowed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Nov 2019WPCR/1076/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's parole application because it was passed mechanically without application of mind. The court directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the case within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the District Magistrate is directed to consider the petitioner's parole application within three weeks.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Cr) No.1076 of 2019

¶4

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Agnihotri Daud, Aged About-52
years, R/o Mission Compound Bhathapara, Post-Janjgir,
Police Station-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

¶8

The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter – Prisons and Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG)

¶9

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶11

The Station House Officer, Police Station-Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶12

The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur (CG)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Soni, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Matin Siddiqui, Dy.A.G.

¶15

: Mr.Matin Siddiqui, Dy.A.G.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

07/11/2019

¶19

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶20

The petitioner is undergoing the sentence for

¶21

commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
He made an application for grant of parole before the
District Magistrate, in which the District Magistrate
called a report from the Superintendent of Police and

¶22

the Superintendent of Police opined that on his
release, there is likelihood of breach of peace and

¶23

¶24

recommended not to be released the petitioner on
parole, which the District Magistrate, who was the
authority competent to consider the application,
accepted and rejected the same simply agreeing
with the opinion of the Superintendent of
Police, against which, this writ petition has been
preferred.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of parole is unsustainable and bad in law.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents, would support the impugned order.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶28

The matter to grant parole by the District Magistrate in accordance with the Rules was considered by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.29 of 2016 ( Rakesh Shende v. State of Chhattisgarh and others ), decided on 18.11.2016, in which it has been held as under:-

¶29

“21.It is important to mention that power
to grant parole is a purely administrative
decision, however, the person who has been
entrusted to grant leave (parole) is the
District Magistrate in the instant case.
The executive must exercise the discretion

¶30

¶31

vested in it judiciously and not
arbitrarily and keeping in mind the
objectives of parole and also taking into
consideration that regardless of the crime
a man may commit, he still is a human being
and has human feelings, particularly
keeping the object of parole as highlighted
by the Supreme Court in Inder Singh(supra)
and keeping in view that the nature and
length of sentence or magnitude of the
crime committed by the prisoners may not be
relevant for the purpose of grant of parole
and further keeping in view that parole was
introducedtoencourageresponsible
behaviour in rehabilitating the prisoners
and at the same time to provide them an
opportunity to reform themselves into a
better human being and also to provide them
with an opportunity to maintain their
social ties and allow the prisoners to
develop a positive attitude, self-
confidence and interest in life.

¶32

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 non-
application 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.”

¶33

A careful perusal of the aforesaid observation made by this Court in Rakesh Shende (supra) would show that on

¶34

¶35

due application of mind in accordance with the Rules
and the object and nature to grant parole to the
convicted prisoner has been emphasized, but flouting
the order of this Court passed in Rakesh Shende
(supra), the District Magistrate simply agreeing with
the opinion of the Superintendent of Police has
rejected the application of the petitioner for grant
of parole and even not passed reasoned and speaking
order after applying its mind, which cannot be
approved by this Court.

¶36

Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside. The District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa is directed to consider the case of the petitioner to grant him the privilege of release / parole within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No cost(s).

¶37

 Sd/-

¶38

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
 Judge

¶39

B/-

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sirdar Vs Bhuira

Tilakram Bani (Died) through Legal Hrs. Vs Debiram Bani

Premkumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manharan Vs C.M and Others

Bhuwan Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh