The High Court, dismissing the parole rejection order as an arbitrary exercise of discretion lacking reasoned application of mind, directed the District Magistrate to decide the petitioner's parole application within three weeks.
Impugned order set aside; District Magistrate directed to consider petitioner's parole application within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Cr) No.171 of 2019
Bhuwan Ram son of Guha Satnami, aged about 50 years,
R/o. Village Bija, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur
(CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector/District Magistrate, Bilaspur, Disrict Bilaspur (CG)Superintendent of Central Jail, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.Purushottam Das Manikpuri,
Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Matin Siddiqui, Dy.A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board
07/11/2019
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the matter is heard finally.
The petitioner is undergoing the sentence for commission of offence under Section 20(b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 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 the Superintendent of Police opined that on his release, there is likelihood of breach of peace and 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 of2
Police, against which, this writ petition has been
preferred.
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.On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents, would support the impugned order.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove also went through the records with utmost circumspection.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:-“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
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
3
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.
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.”
A careful perusal of the aforesaid observation made bythis Court in Rakesh Shende (supra) would show that on 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 with4
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.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside. The District Magistrate, Bilaspur 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.The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh to ensure that applications for grant of parole filed by the convicted prisoners are considered by the District Magistrate of all the Districts expeditiously in accordance with the Rules and taking into consideration the observation made by this Court inRakesh Shende(supra). No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
B/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Magistrate committed an error of law and fact by granting parole rejection without applying its mind to the object of parole.
Whether the mechanical use of a cyclostyle order without reasoned observations justifies the setting aside of the parole rejection order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Shende v. State of Chhattisgarh and othersExplained¶20
Writ Petition (C) No.29 of 2016 ( Rakesh Shende v. State of Chhattisgarh and others )
Inder SinghFollowed¶21
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhuwan Ram
State of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector/District Magistrate, Bilaspur
Superintendent of Central Jail, Bilaspur
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court