LAWS(CHH)-2021-10-46

LOKESH SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On October 18, 2021
Lokesh Sahu Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 3/10/2019 (Annexure P-1) by which application filed by petitioner for his temporary release from jail on parole is dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon.

(2.) Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner and 13 others were tried for commission of offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after conclusion of trial, all of them have been convicted and sentenced by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon on 25/11/2017. Petitioner is languishing in jail from 5/10/2016. An application under Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for brevity 'Rules of 1989') was submitted by petitioner before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg for releasing him temporarily on parole. The Superintendent of Central Jail forwarded petitioner's application to the Sanctioning Authority as prescribed under Sec. 6 of the Rules of 1989 i.e. District Magistrate. On receipt of application, the District Magistrate called report from concerned Superintendent of Police, who in turn called report along with opinion from the Station House Officer of concerned police station. While preparing report, concerned SHO recorded statements of Sarpanch and Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharajpur; family members and relatives of deceased and other villagers of village Maharajpur. The SHO concerned has opined that it will not be proper to temporarily release petitioner from jail on parole. The District Magistrate only considering opinion of SHO, which was forwarded by Superintendent of Police, has dismissed petitioner's application for his temporary release on parole. It is pointed out that District Magistrate has passed stereotype order (Annexure P-1) without applying his mind. He submits that as per provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1989, the District Magistrate has to consider application filed by any convicted prisoner judiciously and rejection of such application is only in exceptional circumstance where District Magistrate is satisfied that release of prisoner is fraught with danger to the public safety. No such satisfaction is recorded by the District Magistrate in order impugned, hence it is liable to be quashed. He also pointed out that Tekram Sahu, Tamesh Kumar Sahu, Sarpanch and Panch of village Panchayat Maharajpur; Ajit Ram Sahu, Rural President of Village Maharajpur; Vinod Kumar Sahu, Taan Singh Sahu, villagers of village Maharajpur have stated in their statements recorded by SHO that they are having no objection in temporary release of petitioner on parole.

(3.) Mr. Uddhav Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that after receiving application of petitioner for temporary release on parole, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg forwarded the same to Competent Authority i.e. District Magistrate. Report was called from the Superintendent of Police, District Rajnandgaon. The Station House Officer of concerned police station recorded statements of various persons including Yogiram Sahu, Narendra Kumar Sahu, Churendra Kumar Sahu, villagers of village Maharajpur, who have expressed apprehension in their statements that release of petitioner on parole will lead to repetition of act of committing offence. Based on the statements of afore-named persons, the SHO submitted report opining that release of petitioner on parole would not be proper. He submits that under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989 it is discretion of District Magistrate to allow or reject application filed for grant of temporary release on parole by any prisoner considering facts and circumstances of each case based on report submitted by concerned authority. However, learned State Counsel does not dispute that except crime in which petitioner is convicted, he has no other criminal antecedent, as reflecting from proceedings drawn by District Magistrate and report submitted by SHO.