HARIHAR YADAV, S/O LATE SUMARU YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME (JAIL) DEPARTMENTLABIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the propriety and validity of the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, BalrampurRamanujganj whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1989') for his release on leave has been rejected.

(2.) Shri V.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned as passed by the District Magistrate is apparently contrary to law. While passing the order impugned, the learned District Magistrate ought to have given his opinion, as required under Rule - 6 of the Rules, 1989. However, without forming any opinion as required, the order impugned has been passed, which is liable to be set aside. Shri Pandey submits that an enquiry was conducted on the basis of his application, in which, the village persons like Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch and others have raised their 'no objection' with regard to release of the petitioner and submits further that although the relatives of the victim have raised their objection in this aspect, but the same ought not to have been taken into consideration as a ground for the refusal of his application, as per the provision prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1989. According to him, the application could be rejected only if it is found based upon the enquiry that the release of the petitioner would be detrimental to the public interest. In absence of such an opinion, the application as made ought not to have been refused. The order impugned is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General appears on behalf of the State while supporting the order impugned submits that the enquiry was duly conducted in the matter on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner where the relatives of the victim have raised very specific objection that if the petitioner would be released then it would be dangerous for their lives. It is, therefore, submitted by him that in view of the objections raised by the relatives of the victim, the release of the petitioner as such would be dangerous to the public safety. As such, the order impugned has rightly been passed by the learned District Magistrate, Balrampur-Ramanujganj on 22.01.2018, and therefore, the same deserves to be upheld.