Vishal Tharvani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:16661-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPCR No. 8 of 2025

¶6

Vishal Tharvani S/o Late Shri Vijay Tharvani Aged About 37 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Near Shriram Care Hospital, Geetanjali Vihar Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Director General Of Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh Head Quarter Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Dy.Govt. Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

2

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

09/04/2025

¶19

Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing.

¶20

Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State.

¶21

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

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and decide the application preferred through mother on 19.11.2024 and the application preferred inside jail on 25.11.2024 for grant of leave/parole (subsequent leve) to the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a epriodof7 days or within any other suitable period; and

¶24

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is challenging the arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in causing delay in deciding the application preferred through mother on 19.11.2024 and the application preferred inside jail on 25.11.2024 for grant of leave/parole

¶26

3

¶27

(subsequent leave) to the petitioner. The petitioner is detained in Central Jail Bilaspur and is in detention since 29.08.2018. On 04.01.2020, the petitioner vide judgment dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Session Trial No. 153/2018 convicted him under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC, 1860. In the year 2020, the petitioner was granted first leave sanctioned by the District Magistrate Bilaspur under the provisions of CG Prisoner Leave Rules 1989 and thereafter the petitioner has been availing benefit of leave from 16.03.2024 to 31.03.2024 and second time from 10.08.2024 to 25.08.2024 and he was entitled to leave for the third time in the light of the provisions given in the Prisoners Act, 1900 and CG Prisoners Leave Rule 1989. In order to avail the benefit of leave for third time in the year 2024, the application for leave was submitted in November 2024 but it has not been decided till date and consequently the petitioner could not avail the benefit of leave. The application for leave was submitted in the month of November 2024 but it has not been decided till date and consequently the petitioner could not avail the benefit of leave and if the application for leave is decided in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner will avail benefit of leave for the first time in the year 2025 but the respondent authorities are causing undue delay in deciding the application preferred for leave to the petitioner.

¶28

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are causing delay in deciding the application preferred for grant of leave/parole to the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC, 1860. In the year 2020, the petitioner was granted first leave

¶29

4

¶30

sanctioned by the District Magistrate Bilaspur under the provisions of CG Prisoner Leave Rules 1989 and thereafter the petitioner has been availing benefit of leave from 16.03.2024 to 31.03.2024 and second time from 10.08.2024 to 25.08.2024 and he was entitled to leave for the third time in the light of the provisions given in the Prisoners Act, 1900 and CG Prisoners Leave Rule 1989. In order to avail the benefit of leave for third time in the year 2024, the application for leave was submitted in November 2024 but it has not been decided till date and consequently the petitioner could not avail the benefit of leave. He submits that if the application for leave is decided in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner will avail benefit of leave for the first time in the year 2025.

¶31

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer would support the impugned order and submits that the affidavit has been filed by the Director General of Prisons in compliance of the earlier order whereby total of 156 parole applications were decided in the month of December 2024 and 188 parole applications have already been decided in the month of January 2025 and the status of the pending 71 parole applications were under process and would be decided after the lifting of model code of conduct. He has filed the chart (Annexure A/4) mentioning the dates on which the applications of the prisoner were decided ie. 06.03.2025, 11.03.2025 respectively. He submits that taking into consideration the fact that the prisoners like the petitioner were unable to get the benefit of parole three times in a year, to streamline the procedure of grant of leave/parole to the prisoner in a year, necessary amendments have been proposed to be incorporated in

¶32

5

¶33

Rules 1989 so as to ensure that the prisoners like the petitioner would be able to avail the benefit.

¶34

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

¶35

On the last date of hearing ie. 09.01.2025, it was directed to the Director General of Prisons, State of Chahttisgarh, Raipur to file personal affidavit disclosing all the cases which are pending for release on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rule, 1989 though the State Government has issued the circular dated 3.12.2019 for deciding the parole application within 15 days and because of not taking decision on the applications of the petitioner and many other prisoners within the stipulated time, their right to release on parole are being lapsed and the order was sent to the Director General of Prisons, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur for necessary action and compliance.

¶36

In compliance of the court order dated 09.01.2025, the Director General of Prisons had filed an affidavit which goes to show that the query made by the Court with respect to the pending applications for parole of the inmates lying in the central jail and district jail of the State of Chhattisgarh as on date, there appears that no such application is pending and the same has already been disposed of as it appears from the chart enclosed (Annexure-A/5) and learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the prisoner is entitled for three paroles as per the rules prescribed but the said right of the prisoners have been infringed because of the fact that the State authorities are not serious in considering the parole application and the parole leave stands lapsed and the State has already written a letter to the Secretary, State of Chhattigarh, Home (Jail) Department (Annexure A-3) to make

¶37

6

¶38

necessary amendments in the rules so that no such infringement of the right of the prisoners be curtailed and the State has yet to take a decision in this regard by making certain amendments. We hope and trust that the State would consider the matter expeditiously.

¶39

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶40

Sd/Sd/-

¶41

(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶42

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:2025.04.13 12:45:58 +0530

Vishal Tharvani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Tharvani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjan Kumar Bhoi @ Aishwarya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jeet Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sushant Mistri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lallu Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Murli @ Mukesh Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh