Chattisgarh High Court
Neelam Kumar Deshmukh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:16412-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 190 of 2025
1 - Neelam Kumar Deshmukh S/o Shailendra Kumar Deshmukh Aged
About 21 Years R/o Kotgaon, Police Station Arjunda, District Balod,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Home
Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
3 -Collector District Balod (C.G.)
4 - Superintendent Of Police District Balod (C.G.)
5 - Station House Officer Police Station Arjunda, District Balod,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
08/04/2025
Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video
conferencing.
2
Heard Ms. Sweksha Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner.
Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with
the following prayers:
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash the order dated 11.09.2024
(Annexure P-1) passed by the office of respondent
No. 3 and direct the respondent No. 3 to release
the petitioner on leave as applied by him in the
application for 14 days leave.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems
fit and appropriate.”
3. The petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) was
rejected by the Collector, District Balod (C.G.) vide order Annexure
P/1 dated 11.09.2024, Against the rejection order dated
11.09.2024 the petitioner has preferred the present petition for a
direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the prayer of the
petitioner as the petitioner is in jail since the year 2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 450,
376(2)(f)(1) of IPC and is languishing in jail since four years and
nine months. He would further submit that the application of the
petitioner has been rejected by the office of respondent No. 3
summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 of the
Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity ‘the Rule,
3
1989′) as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore,
the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 11.09.2024 is
liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate would
support the impugned order and oppose the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned order and the material available on record.
7. From perusal of the impugned order shows that the
respondent No. 3 was swaying with the opinion of the concerned
Station House officer that if the petitioner is released on parole,
there is likelihood that he would commit cognizable offence, hence
he rejected the application of the petitioner.
8. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on
05/08/2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020, the Supreme Court has
granted the benefit of parole to those whose application was
rejected on the ground that the crime is heinous and release of
such a person would send a negative message against the justice
system in the society.
“… Merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and
that release of such a person would send a negative
message against the justice system in the society are
factors de hors Section 2 of the United Provinces
Prisoners Release on Prohibition Act, 1938.Conduct in
prison has not been referred to at all and the Senior
Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate
confirming that the prisoner is not “incapacitated” from
committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he
4is likely to abstain from
crime and lead a peaceable life is released from
prison…”
9.In the instant case also merely on the basis of the vague report of
the concerned SHO, without considering the relevant rules, the
respondent No. 3 has rejected the application of the petitioner. In
view of the above matter and in view of the decision of the Supreme
Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the
respondent No. 3, dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set
aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the Collector-
cum-District Magistrate, Balod (C.G.) is directed to verify the surety
submitted by the petitioner and issue necessary release order
granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days and the petitioner
shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on completion of
14 days, at 11.00 a.m. positively. The District Magistrate, while
allowing the application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may
also seek surety of one family member of the petitioner as provided
in Section 4(e) of the Rules, 1989 and may direct the petitioner to
mark his presence before the District Magistrate, Balod (C.G.) on
each day during that period.
11. In the result, the present petition stands disposed of with the
above observations/directions.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Digitally
Judge Chief Justice
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2025.04.15
12:31:49
+0530