Allowed

Vinod Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2024WPCR/5/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the District Magistrate's order rejecting a prisoner's parole application. Relying on the Supreme Court in Shor, the Court held that vague reports of heinous crime are insufficient without considering procedural rules, directing the Collector to release the petitioner for 14 days.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03.08.2023 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for 14 days from 15.01.2024 to 28.01.2024, with surrender required on 29.01.2024.

Vinod Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 5 of 2024

¶5

Vinod Pandey S/o Dinesh Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Sakin Durjaband Para, Ward No.15, Pandariya, Thana Pandariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Collector Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

08.01.2024

¶19

1 . Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State.

¶20

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the

¶22

¶23

respondent No.3 and direct the respondent No.3 to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him for a period of 14 days.

¶24

10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) vide order dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner's release is likely to lead quarrel and dispute by the petitioner with the complainants as they are the resident of the same society.

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and is languishing in jail since 03.03.2019. She would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.3 i.e. Collector, Kabirdham summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the Collector, Kabirdham dated 03.08.2023 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶27

5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record.

¶29

¶30

7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Collector, Kabirdham was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is every likelihood that he would commit cognizable offence, hence he rejected the application of the petitioner.

¶31

8. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on 05/08/2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020 , the Supreme Court has granted the benefit of parole to those whose application was rejected on the ground that the crime is heinous and release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society.

¶32

“ ... Merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2 of the United Provinces Prisoners Release on Prohibition Act, 1938. Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner is not “incapacitated” from committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life is released from prison… ”

¶33

9. In the instant case also, merely on the basis of the vague report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, without considering the relevant rules, the Collector, Kabirdham has rejected the application of the petitioner. In view of the above matter and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the Collector,

¶34

¶35

Kabirdham (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner namely Vinod Pandey, is directed to be released on parole for 14 days.

¶36

10. Accordingly, the Collector, Kabirdham is directed to issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner namely Vinod Pandey from 15.01.2024 to 28.01.2024 and he shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on 29.01.2024 at 11.00 am positively. The Collector, Kabirdham while allowing the application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may also seek surety as provided in Section 4 (e) of the Rules, 1989.

¶37

11. In the result, the present petition stands disposed off with the above observations/directions.

¶38

Sd/- Sd/-

¶39

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶40

Manpreet / Chandra

Vinod Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Pandey 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girvar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Bakhla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Firuram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Satish Kumar Singh Vs Union of India

Jeet Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh