Remanded

Devlal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jan 2023WPCR/899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting a convict's parole application for failure to record a statutory finding that release is undesirable in public interest under Rule 6(b). The court directed the District Magistrate to consider the application afresh within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; District Magistrate directed to consider the parole application afresh in accordance with the Rules and pass an order within 15 days.

Devlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (Cr.) No.899 of 2022

¶5

Devlal, S/o Baratu Sahu, Convict No.7819/120, Aged about 58 years, Lodged in Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

(In Jail)

---- Petitioner

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶12

Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶13

Thana In-charge, Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶14

Chowki In-charge, Chowki Kareli Badi, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner: Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For Respondents / State: Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, JJ.

¶18

Order On Board (03/01/2023)

¶19

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶20

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 17-62022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Dhamtari, by which the learned District Magistrate has rejected the petitioner / convict’s application for grant of parole on the ground that the victim’s family has expressed objection that he is likely to abscond and the Superintendent of Police has also expressed his unwillingness for his release on parole.

¶21

Reply has been filed supporting the impugned order.

¶22

¶23

Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the District Magistrate is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application only on untenable grounds, the application ought to have been considered in line with Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1989’) and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be released on parole.

¶24

Mr. Avinash Singh, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and submit that the petitioner’s application for grant of parole has rightly been rejected.

¶25

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶26

In order to consider the plea, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989 which provides for grant of leave to the convict.

¶27

“ 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 furtherest place from the Jail which he proposed to visit.

¶28

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 alongwith his report. But the responsibility for the action is that of the

¶29

¶30

District Magistrate. He should use his discretion and should refuse to grant leave only in cases in which he is 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 District Magistrate shall make necessary enquiries form the District Magistrate of that District before sanctioning the leave.

¶31

(b) 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.”

¶32

A careful perusal of Rule 6(b) of the Rules of 1989 would show that the District Magistrate can reject the application finding that grant of leave to the prisoner is undesirable in public interest. However, perusal of the impugned order would show that no express finding has been recorded by the learned District Magistrate that the release of the petitioner is undesirable in public interest, he has only recorded a finding that the victim’s family and Sarpanch & UP-Sarpanch of the village have expressed apprehension on release of the petitioner on parole and similarly, the Superintendent of Police has also expressed his disagreement / objection in release of the petitioner on parole, whereas, the District Magistrate is required to record a finding that grant of leave / parole to the petitioner is undesirable in public interest, no such opinion has expressly been recorded and the application has been rejected.

¶33

The petitioner’s application for parole has been rejected twice on earlier occasions on 24-3-2021 and 30-12-2021 and it is the case of

¶34

¶35

the petitioner that for last 16 years, he has not been granted parole even for a single time and he has not been released on parole. In case if there is a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will break the lave, security can be demanded, but merely on apprehension, the parole application of the convict cannot be rejected, particularly when for last 16 years, the petitioner / convict has not been extended the privilege of parole.

¶36

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17-6-2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Dhamtari is set aside and the District Magistrate is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for parole afresh in accordance with the Rules subject to appropriate conditions and pass order in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

10.The petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).

¶38

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Judge

¶39

Soma

Devlal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devlal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanku Uraon And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Brijbhan Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Devi Prasad Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Motilal Sahu @ Motiram Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Duleshwar Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sombahadur Rana Vs State Of Chhattisgarh