Dhaniram Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Dhaniram Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2025

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                        1




                                                                      2025:CGHC:43159-DB
       Digitally
       signed by
       SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
       2025.08.26
       17:56:23
       +0530


                                                                                        NAFR

                              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                            WPCR No. 470 of 2025

                    1 - Dhaniram Jangde S/o Agarman Jangde Aged About 50 Years
                    Convicted Prisoner No. 7315/34, R/o Village- Mudpar, Police Station-
                    Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G.

                                                                            ... Petitioner(s)

                                                     versus

                    1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home,
                    Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

                    2 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

                    3 - District Magistrate, Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G.

                    4 - Superintendent Of Police Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-
                    Bilaigarh C.G.

                                                                           ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Veer Verma with Shri Ankush
Borkar, Advocates.

For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate.
2

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

26.08.2025

1. Heard Shri Veer Verma, Advocate with Shri Ankush Borkar,

learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Sangharsh

Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the

respondents/State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayer:-

(i) Call for entire record pertaining to the case of the

petitioner.

(ii) Quash the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure

P/1) passed by respondent no. 3 and order may kindly be

passed for temporary release/parole of the petitioner for 14

+ 2 days.

(iii) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper

in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of

justice.

3. The petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) has been

rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sarangarh,
3

District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) vide order dated 28.01.2025

on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of

Police holding that the release of the prisoner on leave, the

villagers, Panchas and the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat have

raised objection, stating that if the prisoner enters the village,

there is a likelihood of an atmosphere of fear and resentment

among the villagers, and there exists every possibility of

breach of peace in the village.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 120(L), 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 436/149,

435/149, 20/149, 307/149 of Indian Penal Code vide order

dated 15.11.2022. He is serving his sentence in Central Jail,

Raipur and entitled for release on parole/leave for 14 + 2 days,

therefore filed an application before respondent no. 2 which

was forwarded to the respondent no. 3 and ultimately

respondent no. 3 dismissed the application without following

the relevant provisions of Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s

Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity ‘the Rule, 1989’) as well as Rules 6,

9, 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore the order passed by
4

the District Magistrate dated 28.01.2025 is liable to be set-

aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the

impugned order and opposes the prayer made by the 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 District

Magistrate, Sarangarh was swaying with the opinion of the

concerned Superintendent of Police that if the petitioner is

released on parole, there is a likelihood of an atmosphere of

fear and resentment among the villagers, and every possibility

of breach of peace in the village.

8. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on

05/08/2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020, the Hon’ble 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
5

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 is likely to abstain from

crime and lead a peaceable life is released from

prison…”

9. In the present case also merely on the basis of the vague

report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, without

considering the relevant rules, the District Magistrate has

rejected the application of the petitioner. In view of the above

matter and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by

the District Magistrate, Sarangarh (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, Sarangarh District Sarangarh-

Bilaigarh (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
6

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, Sarangarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh

(C.G.) on each day during that period.

11. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the

above observations/directions.

              Sd/-                                    Sd/-

         (Bibhu Datta Guru)                       (Ramesh Sinha)
              Judge                                Chief Justice




Shoaib