Allowed

Ghanshyam Sonteke v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2025WPCR/17/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court order allows a writ petition filed by a convicted prisoner seeking parole. The court set aside an additional district magistrate's order rejecting the leave application and directed the release of the petitioner for 14 days in accordance with specific prison rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner released on parole for 14 days with personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Ghanshyam Sonteke Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

1 / 4

2025:CGHC:2399-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPCR No. 17 of 2025

¶6

Ghanshyam Sonteke S/o Baldau Sonteke Aged About 33 Years Convict No. 7082/32, Lodged In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - District Magistrate, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Superintendent Of Police District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Thana In-Charge Police Station- Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner	: Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

¶20

Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN

¶21

2 / 4

¶22

15/01/2025

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

¶24

“The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶25

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside order dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gariyaband.

¶26

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to grant 16 days temporary leave to the petitioner in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989;

¶27

(iii) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

¶28

The petitioner's second application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate, Gariyaband, vide order dated 01.08.2024 looking to the gravity of offence.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner after conviction has been lodged in Raipur Central Jail. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO & Rape Cases) Gariyaband, for the offence under Sections 363, 376 AB and Section 6 of POCSO Act. He has spent more than 05 years in imprisonment and Criminal Appeal challenging his conviction is dismissed by this Hon’ble High Court. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in short ‘the Rule, 1989’) as well as Rules 6, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order

¶30

3 / 4

¶31

dated 01.08.2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Additional District Magistrate, Gariyaband has rejected the application for grant of leave (parole) of petitioner on 01.08.2024 looking to the gravity of offence in public interest.

¶35

In the matter of Shor v. State of U.P . decided on 05.08.2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020, the Hon’ble 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.

¶36

“….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….”

¶37

In the instant case also without considering the relevant rules, the

¶38

4 / 4

¶39

Additional District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. In view of the above matter and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gariyaband dated 01.08.2024 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole.

¶40

Accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate, Gariyaband is directed to issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days from the date of his release on leave/parole on furnishing his personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like some of his one of the family member to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate as provided in Section 4 (e) of the Rules, 1989. The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authority after completion of the aforesaid period of 14 days positively.

¶41

In the result, with the aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition is allowed .

¶42

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶43

ved

Ghanshyam Sonteke v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Sonteke 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

Ramakant Maurya @ Romi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Himalaya Ravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Kumar Bagde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Dinkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paltan Ram Chakradhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Alekh Sandre Mandloi Vs State of Chhattisgarh