2024:CGHC:30015-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 287 of 2024 Raghavendra @ Raghu S/o Shyam Sunder Patel, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Dhuma, Post Dhuma, P.S.- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

At Present R/o Central Jail, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail), Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492002.

2. Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

3. The District Magistrate, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

4. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Digitally Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice signed by ROHIT ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 09.0 8 .2024

2024.08.12

11:21:41 +0530

1. Heard Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.

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

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

10.2. To quash impugned memo dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release the petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989.

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

10.4. Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 09.02.2024 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is prisoner No. 1450/133 in Central Jail Bilaspur where he is undergoing his jail sentence awarded vide judgment dated 22.03.2023 passed by the Upper District and Sessions Judge II F.T.S.C., Bilaspur, wherey the petitioner has been convicted under Section 5(L) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to RI for 20 years and the petitioner is in jail since 20.12.2021 and has served the actual jail sentence of more than 2 years and 7 months, he has not been granted a single leave during his sentence which is straight away violative 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.3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 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 respondent No.3 dated 09.02.2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.

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

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

7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Bilaspur 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 petitio