Anil Rawani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 847 of 2019 • Anil Rawani S/o Munna Ram Rawani, Aged About 40 Years, Prisoner No. 337/48, R/o Village Ludeg, Police Station Pathalgaon District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. Through Munna Ram Rawani S/o Late Ramvriksh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Ludeg Police Station Pathalgaon District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector/District Magistrate Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

3. Sub Divisional Magistrate Pathalgaon District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

4. Superintendent of Police, Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh -----Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 11/09/2019 Heard.

1.

An application for parole filed by the petitioner/convict has been rejected by respondent No.2 stating that the Superintendent of Police had not recommended his release on parole, against which this writ petition has been preferred.

2.

I have learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival

Page No.2 contentions and gone through the records of the case. 3.

Before examining the propriety of the order impugned, it is necessary to examine the Rules, known as 'Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989' framed in exercise of the powers enumerated by Section 31 of the Prisoner's Act, 1900 (No.III of 1900). Rule 4, 5 and 6 of the said Rules, 1989 are relevant for the purpose, therefore, reproduced herein as under:

"4. Conditions of Leave.- The prisoners shall be granted leave under sub-section (1) of Section 31-A of the Act on the following conditions, namely :- (a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31-A of the Act;

(b) He has not committed any offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave;

(c) The releasing authority must be satisfied that the leave may be granted without detriment to the public interest;

(d) He gives in writing to the Releasing Authority the place or places which he intends to visit during the period of his leave and undertake not to visit any other place during such period without obtaining prior permission of the Releasing Authority in that behalf; and (e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Releasing Authority if such security is demanded by the Releasing Authority.

5. Application for grant of Leave.- (a) Request from prisoners for leave under Section 31-A of the Act, shall be made in writing in Form 'F' to the Superintendent of the Jail (hereinafter called Superintendent) at the parade of Monday.

(b) The Superintendent shall personally examine the records of the prisoners making the request for leave and satisfy himself that the prisoner fulfills the conditions for grant of leave. (c) If the prisoner fulfills the conditions of the leave, the Superintendent shall report the first request of the prisoner to the District Magistrate of the concerning district where the prisoner resided before conviction.

6. Sanctioning Authority for first leave.- (a) If the District Magistrate, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, is satisfied that the request for grant of leave can be granted without detriment to public interest, he shall issue to the Superintendent a duly signed and sealed warrant in Form "A' to

Page No.3 the prisoner. The District Magistrate shall enter in the warrant the number of days that will be required for the journeys by the shortest practicable route to and from the place at which during his leave the prisoner proposes to reside or if he proposes to visit more than one place, the fartherest place from the Jail which he proposed to visit.

Note.- The District Magistrate is responsible for the proper carrying out of these instructions. He may of course, consult the District Superintendent of Police on the advisability of granting the leave. The Superintendent of Police should also obtain the opinion of the Gram Panchayat of the village where the prisoner resided before conviction and send to the District Magistrate along with his report. But the responsibility for the action is that of the District Magistrate. He should use his discretion and should refuse to grant leave only in cases in which he is satisfied that release is fraught with danger to the public safety. Security should be demanded only when it is really necessary, for example, when there is reasonable apprehension that the prisoner will break leave.

When security is required, the District Magistrate of the place where the surety resides should be asked by the releasing District Magistrate to accept the surety and not call the surety to his own headquarters. If the prisoner intends to visit another district, where his near relatives reside, the concerning Magistrate shall make necessary enquiries from the District Magistrate of that District before sanctioning the leave.

(b) If the District Magistrate considers that the grant of leave to the prisoner is undesirable in the public interest, he shall intimate his opinion to the Superintendent, who shall inform the prisoner that his request has been rejected." 4.

In accordance to the aforesaid Rules, the respondent No.2 is required to be satisfied that prisoner's release would not be detrimental to the public interest as provided under clause (c) thereof. The satisfaction of the Collector/District Magistrate is condition precedent for grant of leave to the prisoner.

5.

In the instant case, respondent No.2 has not applied his mind to the requirement of Rule 4 to 6 for grant of release of the Petitioner on parole and simply on the ground of non-recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, his application for grant of parole has been rejected, which is impermissible in law. The respondent No.2 ought to have recorded a finding that petitioner's release on parole is

Page No.4 detrimental to public interest. Impugned order dated 16/07/2019 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. Case is remitted to the said authority for considering the said application strictly in accordance with the law withing a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass a reasoned speaking order and communicate to the petitioner accordingly.

6.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. A copy of this order be sent to the respondent No.2 by E-mail and fax also. - Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Aadil