GOURISHANKAR CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a convict undergoing sentence for commission of offences under Ss. 302, 201 and 177 of the IPC. He made an application for grant of leave for a period of 10 + 2 = 12 days in accordance with Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules of 1989') before the District Magistrate, Korba which came to be rejected by the impugned order dtd. 23/7/2021 (Annexure P-1) by the learned District Magistrate which has been called in question by way of this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The principal ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that the petitioner is in jail since 17/12/2016 i.e. for more than six years, but he has not been extended any privilege of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989 granting him leave, though he is entitled for leave as per Rule 6 and that too the District Magistrate did not record finding that grant of leave to him is not in public interest and the District Magistrate has only relied upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police which is not binding on him and he has to exercise his own discretion, and on the basis of apprehension expressed by the Superintendent of Police though there is sufficient safeguard in shape of the provisions in the Rules of 1989 itself which take care of the apprehension which has been expressed by the learned Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate has rejected the application for grant of leave totally on untenable grounds ignoring the Rules of 1989 which sufficiently address the apprehension so expressed by the Superintendent of Police.

(3.) Return has been filed on behalf of the State / respondents stating inter alia that the District Magistrate has conducted enquiry as per Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989 and also took the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police and thereafter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is habitual offender and he could not furnish the security for maintaining peace and tranquility during his leave and as such, his application has rightly been rejected and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.