BALIRAM MANDAVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 10/9/2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of leave (parole) under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule, 1989 has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner is a prisoner, who has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanker vide judgment dtd. 22/4/2015 for life imprisonment under the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and the petitioner is in jail since 23/9/2013. The petitioner has made an application for grant of leave (parole) under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989, but the said application has been rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 10/9/2021 for the reason that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has been booked for serious offence. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved with the said order, the instant writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and against the law, as the application of the petitioner has not been considered on the touchstone of the Rules. The petitioner fulfills all the conditions and eligibility criteria required for grant of leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989 and he is entitled to be released on parole. It is next contended that there is no clinching material available on record to show that the release of the petitioner on leave is fraught with any danger to public safety, therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petition be allowed. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court on 18/11/2016 in WPCR No.29/2016, parties being Rakesh Shende Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.