Chattisgarh High CourtMan Vishram @ Gendu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 October, 20221\n\n\n              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n\n                                   WPCR No. 346 of 2022\n     • Man Vishram @ Gendu S/o Shri Bhikham Sahu, Aged About 57\n       Years R/o. Village Kapsi, P.S. Amleshwar, District Durg\n       (Chhattisgarh) Through Son Tridev Sahu, S/o Man Vishram @\n       Gendu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Kapsi, P.S.\n       Amleshwar District Durg Chhattisgarh\n                                                                           ---- Petitioner\n                                          Versus\n     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary,\n        Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya,\n        Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh\n     2. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District Durg\n        (Chhattisgarh)\n     3. The District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)\n     4. The Superintendent Of Police Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)\n                                                                      ---- Respondents\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner                      : Shri SP Sahu, Advocate\nFor respondents/State               : Shri Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi\n                                   Order On Board\n31.10.2022.1.      With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally\nat the motion stage.2.      The present petition has been filed by the petitioner underArticles 226of the Constitution of India against order dated\n03.3.2022        (Annexure-P/1)            passed        by     District      Magistrate,\nDurg(CG), whereby, application for releasing the petitioner on\nparole, has been rejected.3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the\npetitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under\nSection 304(Part-II)IPCand sentenced to undergo rigorous\nimprisonment for 07 years along with fine by Fifth Additional\nSessions Judge, Durg (CG) in Session Trial No.96/1999. It is\nfurther submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 10.01.2020.\nAfter he became entitled for benefit of temporary release under2the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (for short 'Rules\n1989'), he filed application for grant of temporary release/parole,\nwhich has been rejected by District Magistrate, Durg vide\nimpugned order dated 03.3.2022 which is perse illegal and\nagainst the provisions of the Rules 1989. Hence, it is prayed that\nappropriate direction may be issued to the respondent-authorities\nfor release of the petitioner on temporary release/parole.4.    Learned counsel for the State while referring to the reply\nfiled by the State, would submit that the application of the\npetitioner has been strictly considered in accordance with law\nand since the police have raised objection stating therein that on\nbeing granted parole to the petitioner, he may commit further\nheinous offence and family members of the victim have also\nraised their objection and therefore, his application has been\ndismissed by the District Magistrate.       Hence, impugned order\ndoes not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.5.    Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the\nsubmissions and perused all the materials available on record.6.    Having considered the rival contentions put forth on behalf\nof either side, it is relevant to mention here that the State\nGovernment has enacted specific rules in respect of grant of\nleave to the prisoners, in exercise of its powers conferred upon it\nunder the provisions of thePrisoners Act, 1900. Said Rules in\nthe State of Chhattisgarh are known as 'The Chhattisgarh\nPrisoner's Leave Rules, 1989'. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1989 deals\nwith conditions of the leave, which reads as under:"4. Conditions of Leave.- The prisoners shall be\n          granted leave under sub-section (1) ofSection 31-Aof the Act on the following conditions, namely :-(a) He fulfills the conditions laid down inSection 31-\n          Aof the Act;(b) He has not committed any offence in jail between\n          the date of application for leave and receipt of the\n          order of such leave;(c) The releasing authority must be satisfied that the\n          leave may be granted without detriment to the public\n          interest;3(d) He gives in writing to the Releasing Authority the\n          place or places which he intends to visit during the\n          period of his leave and undertake not to visit any\n          other place during such period without obtaining\n          prior permission of the Releasing Authority in that\n          behalf; and(e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of\n          the Releasing Authority if such security is demanded\n          by the Releasing Authority."7.    Rule 6 of the Rules 1989 provides that "if the District\nMagistrate, after making such enquiry as he may consider\nnecessary, is satisfied that the request for grant of leave can be\ngranted without detriment to public interest, he shall issue to the\nSuperintendent a duly signed and sealed warrant in Form 'A' to\nthe prisoner.8.    Note      appended   to   Rule    6(a)    provides     that   while\nconsidering the matter, District Magistrate may consult with\nDistrict Superintendent of Police, who would also obtain the\nopinion of Gram Panchayat. Perusal of note attached to Rule\n6(a) clearly reflect that there is only one ground on which leave\ncan be refused by the District Magistrate, i.e. only in a case\nwhere he is satisfied that the release of the petitioner is fraught\nwith danger      to   the public   safety      and   under    no    other\ncircumstances, the leave can be refused as a matter of routine\nwithout cogent reasons.9.    The responsibility for the action under the Rules 1989 has\nbeen entrusted to the District Magistrate, hence, it is expected\nthat such responsibility be complied with considering the object of\ngranting parole.10.   The object of granting parole is to make necessary efforts\nto rehabilitate a convict prisoner in the main stream of society\nbased on "Karuna" (compassion) as well as on human\nconsideration.11.   In the case of Poonam Lata vs. ML Wadhawan and Ors.\nReported in (1987) 3 SCC 347,            the Supreme Court while\nhighlighting the object of parole has observed that "release on4parole is a wing of the reformative process and is expected to\nprovide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a\nuseful citizen. Parole is thus a grant of partial liberty or lessening\nof restrictions to a convict prisoner."12.   Similar matter had come up before the Madhya Pradesh\nHigh Court in 2022 and relying upon the aforesaid judgment of\nthe Supreme Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case\nofJeevan Singh Verma Vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2002 (1)\nM.P.L.J. 347, while deciding the case after referring to the\nprovisions of thePrisoners Actheld as under :"7. Now the question that falls for consideration is\n              whether the petitioner should be granted the\n              benefit of parole or temporary release.In this\n              context I may profitably refer to the decision\n              rendered in the case ofInder Singh and Anr. v.\n              The State (Delhi Administration) 1978 SCC (Cri)\n              564 wherein their Lordships emphasized on\n              rehabilitation and quoted a passage from Lewis\n              Moore with approval. The said passage reads as\n              under :"You cannot rehabilitate a man\n                     through      brutality   and      disrespect.\n                     Regardless of the crime a man may\n                     commit, he still is a human being and has\n                     feelings. And the main reason most\n                     inmates in prison today disrespect their\n                     keepers, is because they themselves (the\n                     inmates) are disrespected and are not\n                     treated like human beings. I myself have\n                     witnessed brutal attacks upon inmates and\n                     have suffered a few myself, if he becomes\n                     violent. But many a time this restraining\n                     has turned into a brutal beating. Does this\n                     type of treatment bring about respect and\n                     rehabilitation? No.! It only instills hostility\n                     and causes alienation toward the prison\n                     officials from the inmate or inmates\n                     involved.If you treat a man like an animal, then you\n                     must expect him to act like one. For every\n                     action, there is reaction. This is only\n                     human nature. And in order for an inmate\n                     to act like a human being, you must treat\n                     him as such. Treating him like an animal\n                     will only get negative results from him."5In the aforesaid case the Apex Court laid\n              emphasis on the concept of 'Karuna' and\n              directed that parole should be allowed to the\n              convicts if they show responsibility and\n              trustworthiness. To quote-" Parole will be allowed to them so that their\n                 family ties may be maintained and inner\n                 tensions may not further build up."Thus parole has been treated as a curative\n              strategy keeping in view the human dignity\n              which is the quintessence ofArticle 21of the\n              Constitution.13.   In view of the aforesaid principle of lawlaid down bythe\nHon'ble Apex Court, if it is considered on the facts of the instant\ncase, then it is found that in the impugned order (Annexure-P/1)\nand reports of the Station House Officer (Annexure-R/2) and the\nSenior Superintendent of Police, Distt. Durg (Annexure-R/3), it\nhas been mentioned that proposed sureties of the petitioner are\nready to keep the petitioner in their control. It has also been\nmentioned that Surpanch of the concerned village panchayat has\nalso stated no objection to grant leave/parole to the petitioner.\nThough family members of the victim and the police have raised\nobjection for grant of temporary release/parole to the petitioner\non the ground that he may again commit heinous crime, but they\nhave not shown any appropriate/legal ground in respect of their\napprehension that the petitioner would again commit heinous\noffence, if he would be granted temporary release/parole. The\nreasons mentioned by the District Magistrate for not granting\nparole to the petitioner are not seem to be appropriate and it\ncannot be considered as absolute bar to grant parole to the\npetitioner, which is the right created under Rule 4 & 6 f the Rules\n1989, in favour of the convict, as has been stated in the\npreceding paragraphs.14.   The Rules 1989 have been enacted with certain object,\ntherefore, application for grant of parole should be considered\nbearing in mind those objects. By rejection of such application on\nany of the ground, which is not reasonable, the object of framing6aforesaid Rules would be frustrated. Therefore, in the facts of\n       instant case, the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole as\n       per Rules of 1989.15.   Accordingly, the District Magistrate is directed to issue\n       necessary release order granting temporary leave/parole to the\n       petitioner for the period applied for in accordance with aforesaid\n       Act/Rules, within a period of 15 days from the date of\n       presentation of certified copy of this order.         The District\n       Magistrate while allowing the application for grant of parole to the\n       petitioner may also seek surety as provided inSection 4(e)of the\n       Rules 1989.16.   In the result, the petition stands disposed of with the above\n       observation/direction.Sd/-(N.K. Chandravanshi)\n                                                        JUDGE\nBini