GIRISH KUMAR MARKAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence u/s 302, 34 of IPC and is in jail since 24/7/2013. He filed an application for release on parole, which was forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur and the opinion was obtained from the Superintendent of Police and enquiry was conducted wherein no objection was made by the local residents wherein the petitioner used to stay. However, the Superintendent of Police, Town Inspector, New Rajendra Nagar recommended not to release the petitioner and apprehension was made that if the petitioner is released on parole on the basis of old animosity he would cause further damage and assault to the victim and the family members of the victim, eventually the application for release on parole of the petitioner was rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the parole application was allowed initially in the year 2018, but he was not release for the reason that surety could not appear. She further submits that the petitioner is entitled to be released as per the C.G. Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rule, 1989") and the application of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected at the threshold only on the ground of apprehension. She further referred to case laws laid down in Dadu alias Tulsidas s. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 437; Inder Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration) 1978 SCC (Cri) 564 and Jeevan Verma Vs. State of M.P. 2002 (1) MPLJ 347 and would submit that in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the application of the petitioner for grant of parole ought to have been allowed.