Advocates:
['RAVI MAHESHWARI', '', 'B L SAHU', 'SHANTANU KUMAR', 'A G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

W.P.(Cr.) No. 423 of 2017

1. Devkumar S/o Meghram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Ureha

Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

2. Netram S/o Meghram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Ureha Police

Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department

(Jail) Department Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Police

Station Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh.

3. The District Collector, Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa

Chhattisgarh.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Janjgir Champa District Janjgir

Champa Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For the Petitioners

:

Shri Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate.

For the Respondents/ State :

Shri Neeraj Sharma, Deputy G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

ORDER

13.10.2017

1.

Heard.

2.

This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for issuance of appropriate writ.

3.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are

undergoing jail sentence of life imprisonment in connection with conviction in

sessions trial which has been upheld by the High Court in the criminal

appeal. They are in jail since 7.10.2015. Under the provisions of the

Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short 'Rules, 1989), an

2

application was moved for release of the petitioners/ prisoners on leave on

27.8.2016. The application has been kept pending by respondent No.3 and

not decided till date. The petitioners are entitled for release on leave as per

the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1989. Hence, this petition.

4.

Learned State counsel submits that the case may be disposed off with

directions.

5.

Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on

record.

6.

From the documents on record, it appears that an application for

release on leave of the petitioners has been forwarded and recommended

by the Jail Authorities on 27.8.2016 and a separate application has also

been filed by the brother of the petitioners before respondent No.3 vide

Annexure-P/4. As per the submissions, the petitioners have no information

as to the decision, if any, made on their application by respondent No.3,

hence, their application for leave is still pending before respondent No.3.

7.

In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Shende

vs. State of Chhattisgarh in W.P.(Cr.) No.29 of 2017 and in view of the

provisions under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1989, respondent No.3 vested with

authority should have decided the application for release on leave within a

reasonable time.

8.

Considering the submissions made, without any interference into the

authority of the District Collector (Respondent No.3), it is directed that if

3

there does not exist any valid ground to withhold the grant of leave to the

petitioners, respondent No.3 shall pass the order on the petitioners'

application, within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a

certified copy of this order, granting them leave for the period as per their

entitlement.

9.

In view of the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed at the

motion stage.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)

Judge

Nimmi