Ramprasad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(CR.) No. 205 of 2017 Ramprasad, S/o. Shri Nanduram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Gaangpur, P. O. Darrabhaata, P.S.- Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) Through : Rajmohan Lal, S/o Shri Buddhram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village- Surakachhar Basti, P. O. Bairaibtall, Thana Bakimongra, District Korba (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its, Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2.

The Jail and Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, The Director General Prisons, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3.

The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

4.

The District Magistrate -Korba, District -Korba (Chhattisgarh). 5.

The Superintendent of Police, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh). -----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 27/07/2017 Heard.

1.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been brought seeking relief for issuance of directions to release the petitioner on leave in accordance with the provisions of C.G. Prisoner Leave Rules, 1989.

2.

It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that petitioner is convict for offence U/s. 302, 201/34 of I.P.C. and is under going sentence of life imprisonment in Central Jail, Bilaspur since 16.11.2013. After the requisite period of detention on the basis of entitlement under C.G.

Page No.2 Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989, petitioner preferred an application for grant of leave to respondent No.4, District Magistrate, Korba. Respondent No.4 called for the opinion and recommendations of Superintendent of Police Korba, who reported that petitioner is convicted for heinous offence and on his release there is possibility that he may further commit some serious offence. On the basis of opinion given by the Superintendent of Police, respondent No.4 has rejected the application of the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No.4 has made no application of mind in passing the order under the provisions of C.G. Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989, wherein it is essential for him to give a finding recording his satisfaction whether the release of the petitioner is detriment to public interest or is fraught with danger to public safety. Hence, the order passed is arbitrary and casual, hence this petition.

3.

Counsel for the State has submitted that if this petition is disposed of with suitable directions then he has nothing to oppose. 4.

Perused all the documents and the material placed on record. The report of Superintendent of Police, District - Korba dated 13.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) states that petitioner is convict of serious offence and his release on leave may result in further commission of any other serious offence. Annexure P/2 is the order dated 03.05.2017 by respondent No.4, in which, the report of Superintendent of Police is accepted as it is and without adding any comment on the report, the application has been rejected.

5.

The requirement for consideration of application for leave, the Rules of 1989, have not been complied with. It appears on perusal of the order of respondent No.4 dated 03.05.2017, there is no finding recorded that

Page No.3 the release of prisoner would be detrimental to public interest or would be detrimental for the public safety. The report of Superintendent of Police is based on just conjecture and surmises. 6.

This Court has clearly laid down in the order dated 18.11.2016 passed in WP(Cr) No.29 of 2016 Rakesh Shende Vs. State of Chhattisgarh that an application for leave by a prisoner, should not be decided in casual and perfunctory manner and, further, directions have also been issued which have to be complied with before disposing the application of leave. Therefore, considering all these facts, it seems appropriate to dispose of this petition, at the motion stage. Hence, this petition is allowed. The order dated 03.05.2017 passed by respondent No.4, is set aside.

7.

Respondents are directed to reconsider the application of petitioner in the light of direction, issued in the WP(Cr.) No.192 of 2017 and also in compliance with the direction, issued in Rakesh Shendre (supra) case. 8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.08.2015, passed in W.P.(Cr.) No.207/2014 (Virendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), in which after coming to conclusion that the District Magistrate has passed the order arbitrarily in contravention for the provision of Rule 6 of Prisoner Leave Rule, 1989 the order was set aside and the District Magistrate was directed to issue necessary release orders granting leave to the petitioner for the period applied for within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is submitted that despite the orders passed by this Court, respondents acted mechanically in considering and deciding the leave application of prisoner. Hence, a specific direction be made in this respect in the

Page No.4 interest of justice.

9.

Considering the submission made, without any interference into the authority of the District Magistrate(respondent No.4), it is directed that if, there are no ground to specifically withhold, then order be passed by respondent No.4 for grant of leave to the petitioner for the period of leave preferably within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 10.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram