HARISH SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of order dtd. 05/08/2022 (Annexure P/1) by which learned District Magistrate, Kawardha has rejected his application for grant of parole finding no merit.

(2.) Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that merely on the basis of apprehension expressed by the police authorities and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), petitioner's application has been rejected, whereas, the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules of 1989') is a complete code in itself and sufficient safeguard has been provided in shape of Rules 4, 4-C and 6 and the note appended to Rule 6(a) of the Rules of 1989. He would further submit that conditions for release on leave have been prescribed in Rule 9, steps to be taken in the event of breach of said conditions have been prescribed in Rule 11 and penalty for overstay has been prescribed in Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989. Thus, apprehension has been taken care of in the Rules of 1989 itself. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) Mr. Avinash Singh, learned State counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and opposes the writ petition.