Remanded

Harish Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2022WPCR/601/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a parole application based solely on the victim's father's objection. The court directed the State to reconsider the application, disregarding the family objection as a sole ground, and imposed strict conditions on grant.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; respondent State directed to reconsider parole application within 30 days following specified conditions.

Harish Kumar Verma Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

WPCR No. 601 of 2021

¶4

Harish Kumar Verma S/o Ram Kumar Verma Aged About 24 Years Convict No. 6272/25, Lodged In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, DistrcitRaipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Distrcit Magistrate Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Additional District Mgistrate Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Senior Superintendent of Police Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶11

Thana In-Charge Police Station- Tilda Nevra, District- Raipur, , Chhattisgarh --- Respondents

¶12

For the Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For the State/Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

04.08.2022

¶16

The instant petition is against the order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Raipur, whereby the application to release the petitioner on parole of 10 days was rejected on the ground of objection made by Punaram Verma, father of deceased. The statement of father purports that if the petitioner comes to the village on parole, he may develop grudge and animosity against the deceased family and may recur any untoward incident.

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in jail since 11.11.2018 and deserves to be released on parole as per the the C.G. Prisoners Rule, 1989. She further submits that during enquiry, the surety and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat have not objected to petitioner's temporary release, but the application for parole came to be rejected only on the ground of objection made by Punaram Verma, father of deceased. Learned counsel submits that parole is a reformative process and the privilege granted by the State cannot be denied for the vague reasons, so the rejection of parole is illegal.

¶19

As per the return filed by the State, the petitioner stands convicted u/s 302 read with section 34 IPC relating to Crime No.410/2018, thereby he is undergoing the sentence and the State has exercised the power under the Prisoner's Act 1900 and the Rules made thereunder and eventually the rejection order was passed.

¶20

What is relevant here at this juncture is that the State Government has framed specific Rules called as “The Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989” 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. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 deals with the conditions of leave. For ready reference the said clause is reproduced herein below :

¶21

"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 :-

¶22

(a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31- A of the Act;

¶23

(b) He has not committed any offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave;

¶24

¶25

¶26

may be granted without detriment to the public interest;

¶27

(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;

¶28

(e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Releasing Authority if such security is demanded by the Releasing Authority."

¶29

If we take into consideration the Note attached to Rule 6 (a) & (b), it clearly reflects that there is only one ground on which leave can be refused by the District Magistrate and it is only in case where he is satisfied that the release of the prisoner is fraught with danger to the public safety and under no other circumstances can the leave be refused as a matter of routine without cogent reasons. Further perusal of Rule 6 also clearly shows that before the District Magistrate takes a decision on the application for grant of temporary leave he has to consult the District Superintendent of Police who in turn has to obtain the opinion of the Gram Panchayat of the village where the prisoner resides. Rule 6(b) contemplates that if the District Magistrate considers that the grant of leave to the prisoner is undesirable in the public interest, he shall intimate his opinion to the Superintendent, who shall inform the prisoner that his request has been rejected.

¶30

As has been held by Supreme Court in Dadu alias Tulsidas Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (8) SCC 437 , the parole is not a suspension of sentence and the convict continues to be serving the sentence despite granting of parole under the statute, rules, jail manual or the Government orders.

¶31

Here in the instant case, the rejection is based on objection raised by the father of deceased and further apprehension has been shown that if the petitioner is enlarged on parole, he may

¶32

¶33

again commit untoward incident. Though the rule does not contemplate the opinion of the family members of the victim for granting parole, but this Court cannot ignore the facts mentioned in affidavit which have been placed on record by the Law Officer, Central jail, Raipur in WPCR No. 389 of 2021 (Dhaneshwar @ Nanu Vs. State) wherein it is stated that during the period of March 2020 to 10th March, 2022, total 39 convicted have been granted parole and no-body has returned of their own after completion of period of parole. Thereafter 21 convicts were arrested with the help of Police and out of them, 11 have again committed offence while they were on parole, for which, FIRs were registered.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the privilege of the petitioner cannot be sidelined for fault of others. She vehemently contends that the purpose of parole is to ensure that a prisoner meets with his family members and the parole being a reformative process cannot be denied to the convict petitioner merely on the objection and apprehension raised by the father of victim.

¶35

Considering the fact that the petitioner was convicted for heinous offence and is serving the life sentence, the practical aspect of the matter cannot be completely side-lined that once the parole is granted, there is a tendency that the accused/ convict would be at liberty as appears from the number of defaults and this message might have spread among the convict people to get released in the garb of parole. So, in order to release the convicts on parole, a balance has to be arrived to maintain the social safety of general public and right of convicts.

¶36

¶37

Therefore, the State would be within its domain to re-examine the application of the petitioner other than reasons of conviction after inquiring all the ancillary incidental aspects by evaluating the background of convicts and ensure further safe-guard for his return and good behavior during parole. Further the State while allowing the application for grant of parole, may also impose the following conditions upon the prisoner and its surety :

¶38

(A) Conditions to be imposed upon surety while allowing the application for parole :

¶39

Surety should not have any criminal antecedents.

¶40

Surety should be from prisoner's family or close relatives (If there is no family member or close relative capable of taking surety, affidavit to this effect should be taken from in person standing as surety)

¶41

Amount of surety should not be less than Rs.50,000/-

¶42

Forfeiture of security amount, in case the prisoner absconds.

¶43

(B) Conditions to be imposed upon the prisoner while releasing him on parole :

¶44

1 (a) Prisoner shall inform Kotwar/Sarpanch (in case Prisoner is visiting village during parole) about his reaching the village and shall give his attendance daily before Kotwar/Sarpanch;

¶45

(b) In case prisoner is visiting Municipal area, he shall inform Ward members/Corporator about his arrival and shall also give daily attendance before him during the period of leave;

¶46

2 In case of failure on the part of prisoner to mark his attendance before Kotwar/ Sarpanch/ Ward member/ Corporator, they shall immediately inform the nearest Police Station about nonappearance/ Absence of the prisoner;

¶47

Accordingly, it is observed that the respondent State may reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of parole other than the rejection on the grounds of objection made by the father of victim or apprehension raised by him and shall take into account the directions given above. All this exercise shall

¶48

¶49

be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt

¶50

of the order.

¶51