Disposed

Vishal Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2024WPCR/341/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prisoner's parole application was rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate based on a vague police report that his release could cause quarrel and harm. The High Court set aside the rejection, relying on Shor v. State of UP, and directed his release on parole for 14 days with surety verification.

What did the court decide?

Rejection order dated 27.04.2024 set aside; petitioner directed to be released on parole for 14 days after surety verification, surrendering at 11 am thereafter.

Vishal Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:34744-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPCR No. 341 of 2024

¶6

Vishal Vishwakarma S/o Puran Lal Vishwakarma Aged About 26 Years R/o - Kumhar Mohalla Talapara Police Station - Civil Line Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Through - Premlata W/o Puran Vishwakarma Age About 49 R/o Ward No. 7 Sonari Para Ratanpur Post Ratanpur Police Station - Ratanpur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Jail And Correctional Service Chhattisgarh The Director General Prisons Jail Road Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - The District Magistrate Raipur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

06.09.2024

¶20

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

¶21

heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate,

¶22

2 / 4

¶23

appearing for the State/respondents.

¶24

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

¶25

“10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioner's leave case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court.

¶26

10.2 To direct respondents to release petitioner on leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989.

¶27

10.3 To quash the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 (Annexure P-1).

¶28

10.4 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶29

3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 27.04.2024 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 on the ground that the victim’s family had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to life and property.

¶30

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has spent for about 4 years in jail since 15.08.2020, and has not been released on parole even for once, which is straight away violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.4 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989')

¶31

3 / 4

¶32

as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 27.04.2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

“ ... 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

¶38

4 / 4

¶39

tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life is released from prison… ”

¶40

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-cum-District Magistrate, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 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-cum-District Magistrate, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole.

¶41

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, District Bilaspur (C.G.) is directed to verify the surety submitted by the petitioner and issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days and the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on completion of 14 days, at 11 am positively. The District Magistrate, 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.

¶42

In the result, the present petition stands disposed of with the above

¶43

observation/direction

¶44

Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha )

¶45

Judge Chief Justice

¶46

Manpreet

Vishal Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Vishwakarma 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

Ravi Kumar Agrawal (Kedia) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

S. Sunil Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Nanak Bhagwandas Aahuja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Niharika Sinha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Gomati Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Keshav Kumar Vs Union of India