TEEKAMCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dtd. 7/5/2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Uttar Bastar Kanker whereby the claim of the Petitioner for temporary leave has been rejected.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said order (Annexure P-3) has been passed in the light of the order of the Superintendent of Police, Uttar Bastar Kanker, dtd. 23/2/2016 (Annexure P-2) wherein the Superintendent of Police in a one line order, without considering the report dtd. 29/12/2015 of the Station House Officer, Bhanupratappur who was entrusted to conduct an inquiry and to submit a report in respect of grant of temporary leave to accused, had given an adverse recommendation ignoring the recommendation of the Station House Officer for temporary leave.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the provisions of Rules framed in this regard which in the State of Chhattisgarh is known as The Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (in short, 'the Rules of 1989'). Rule 4 deals with the conditions of leave and Rule 6 deals with the powers of Sanctioning Authority while grant of first leave. Highlighting on the Note affixed to Rule 6, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it clearly reflects that the District Magistrate can refuse to grant leave only in case if he is satisfied that release is fraught with danger to the public safety. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this itself implies that under all other circumstances the application for grant of temporary leave has to be considered objectively and cannot be rejected as a matter of routine.