Order on Board

07/12/2020

1.Heard on admission.

2.Admit.

3.Issue notice to the respondents.

4.Mr. Ravi Bhagat accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State.

5.With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

6.Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that petitioner is in jail since 11 years and he has not been granted the leave on parole even once for the aforesaid period, yet his application for grant of leave on parole under Rule 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 (in short, “the rules, 1989”) has been rejected by learned District Magistrate vide the impugned order merely on the basis of agreeing to the police report submitted by the S.P., Dhamtari and no reason for rejecting his application has been assigned by him as such and further the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Rakesh Shende v. State of Chhattisgarh1 has also not been complied with.

7.Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order.

8.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

1 WPCR No. 29/2016 decided on 18/11/2016

9.In the matter of Rakesh Shende (supra), this Court has held as under :-

“In exercise of the power conferred by Section 31-E of the Prisoners Act, the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh had enacted the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 which is also applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh as duly adopted. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 provides for conditions of leave. Rule 6 provides for Sanctioning Authority for first leave and a Note has also been appended to it. Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules of 1989 state as under:-

"4. Conditions of Leave.--The prisoners shall be granted leave under sub-section (1) of Section 31-A of the Act on the following conditions, namely :--

(a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31-A of the Act;

(b) He has not committed any offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave;

(c) The releasing authority must be satisfied that the leave may be granted without detriment to the public interest; (d) He gives in writing to the Releasing Authority the place or places which he intends to visit during the period of his leave and undertake not to visit any other place during such period without obtaining prior permission of the Releasing Authority in that behalf; and (e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Releasing Authority if such security is demanded by the Releasing Authority.

6. Sanctioning Authority for first leave.--(a) If the District Magistrate, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, is satisfied that the request for grant of leave can be granted without detriment to public interest, he shall issue to the Superintendent a duly signed and sealed warrant in Form 'A' to the prisoner. The District Magistrate shall enter in the warrant the number of days that will be required for the journeys by the shortest practicable route to and from the place at which during his leave the prisoner proposes to reside or if he proposes to visit more than one place, the fartherest place from the Jail which he proposed to visit.

Note.--The District Magistrate is responsible for the proper carrying out of these instructions. He may of course, consult the District Superintendent of Police on the advisability of granting the leave. The Superintendent of Police should also obtain the opinion of the Gram Panchayat of the village, where the prisoner resided before conviction and send to the District Magistrate along with his report. But the responsibility for the action is that of the District Magistrate. He should use his discretion and should refuse to grant leave only in cases in which he is satisfied that release is fraught with danger to the public safety. Security should be demanded only when it is really necessary, for example, when there is reasonable apprehension that the prisoner will break leave. When security is required, the D