Vishal Tharvani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2025

0
3

Chattisgarh High Court

Vishal Tharvani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2025

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                      1




                                                  2025:CGHC:16661-DB
                                                                   NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                           WPCR No. 8 of 2025


Vishal Tharvani S/o Late Shri Vijay Tharvani Aged About 37 Years R/o
Nehru Nagar, Near Shriram Care Hospital, Geetanjali Vihar Police
Station Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
                                                      ... Petitioner(s)


                                   versus


1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail)
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.


2 - The Director General Of Prisons And Correctional Services
Chhattisgarh    Head    Quarter     Prisons And     Correctional    Services
Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh.


3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.


                                                     ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Dy.Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board
2

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
09/04/2025

Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video

conferencing.

Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government

Advocate appearing for respondents/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire records pertaining to this case
from possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction
commanding the respondents to consider and
decide the application preferred through mother
on 19.11.2024 and the application preferred inside
jail on 25.11.2024 for grant of leave/parole
(subsequent leve) to the petitioner as early as
possible preferably within a epriodof7 days or within
any other suitable period; and

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper, may also be passed in favour
of the petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is challenging the

arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in causing delay in deciding

the application preferred through mother on 19.11.2024 and the

application preferred inside jail on 25.11.2024 for grant of leave/parole
3

(subsequent leave) to the petitioner. The petitioner is detained in

Central Jail Bilaspur and is in detention since 29.08.2018. On

04.01.2020, the petitioner vide judgment dated 04.01.2020 passed by

the learned Additional Session Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in

Session Trial No. 153/2018 convicted him under Sections 148 and

302/149 IPC, 1860. In the year 2020, the petitioner was granted first

leave sanctioned by the District Magistrate Bilaspur under the provisions

of CG Prisoner Leave Rules 1989 and thereafter the petitioner has been

availing benefit of leave from 16.03.2024 to 31.03.2024 and second

time from 10.08.2024 to 25.08.2024 and he was entitled to leave for the

third time in the light of the provisions given in the Prisoners Act, 1900

and CG Prisoners Leave Rule 1989. In order to avail the benefit of

leave for third time in the year 2024, the application for leave was

submitted in November 2024 but it has not been decided till date and

consequently the petitioner could not avail the benefit of leave. The

application for leave was submitted in the month of November 2024 but

it has not been decided till date and consequently the petitioner could

not avail the benefit of leave and if the application for leave is decided in

favour of the petitioner, the petitioner will avail benefit of leave for the

first time in the year 2025 but the respondent authorities are causing

undue delay in deciding the application preferred for leave to the

petitioner.

4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents

are causing delay in deciding the application preferred for grant of

leave/parole to the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner has

been convicted for the offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC,

1860. In the year 2020, the petitioner was granted first leave
4

sanctioned by the District Magistrate Bilaspur under the provisions of

CG Prisoner Leave Rules 1989 and thereafter the petitioner has been

availing benefit of leave from 16.03.2024 to 31.03.2024 and second

time from 10.08.2024 to 25.08.2024 and he was entitled to leave for the

third time in the light of the provisions given in the Prisoners Act, 1900

and CG Prisoners Leave Rule 1989. In order to avail the benefit of

leave for third time in the year 2024, the application for leave was

submitted in November 2024 but it has not been decided till date and

consequently the petitioner could not avail the benefit of leave. He

submits that if the application for leave is decided in favour of the

petitioner, the petitioner will avail benefit of leave for the first time in the

year 2025.

5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer would support the

impugned order and submits that the affidavit has been filed by the

Director General of Prisons in compliance of the earlier order whereby

total of 156 parole applications were decided in the month of December

2024 and 188 parole applications have already been decided in the

month of January 2025 and the status of the pending 71 parole

applications were under process and would be decided after the lifting

of model code of conduct. He has filed the chart (Annexure A/4)

mentioning the dates on which the applications of the prisoner were

decided ie. 06.03.2025, 11.03.2025 respectively. He submits that

taking into consideration the fact that the prisoners like the petitioner

were unable to get the benefit of parole three times in a year, to

streamline the procedure of grant of leave/parole to the prisoner in a

year, necessary amendments have been proposed to be incorporated in
5

Rules 1989 so as to ensure that the prisoners like the petitioner would

be able to avail the benefit.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned order and the material available on record.

7. On the last date of hearing ie. 09.01.2025, it was directed to the

Director General of Prisons, State of Chahttisgarh, Raipur to file

personal affidavit disclosing all the cases which are pending for release

on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rule, 1989 though

the State Government has issued the circular dated 3.12.2019 for

deciding the parole application within 15 days and because of not taking

decision on the applications of the petitioner and many other prisoners

within the stipulated time, their right to release on parole are being

lapsed and the order was sent to the Director General of Prisons, State

of Chhattisgarh, Raipur for necessary action and compliance.

8. In compliance of the court order dated 09.01.2025, the Director

General of Prisons had filed an affidavit which goes to show that the

query made by the Court with respect to the pending applications for

parole of the inmates lying in the central jail and district jail of the State

of Chhattisgarh as on date, there appears that no such application is

pending and the same has already been disposed of as it appears from

the chart enclosed (Annexure-A/5) and learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that the prisoner is entitled for three paroles as

per the rules prescribed but the said right of the prisoners have been

infringed because of the fact that the State authorities are not serious in

considering the parole application and the parole leave stands lapsed

and the State has already written a letter to the Secretary, State of

Chhattigarh, Home (Jail) Department (Annexure A-3) to make
6

necessary amendments in the rules so that no such infringement of the

right of the prisoners be curtailed and the State has yet to take a

decision in this regard by making certain amendments. We hope and

trust that the State would consider the matter expeditiously.

9. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.

                                          Sd/-                                    Sd/-
                               (Arvind Kumar Verma)                        (Ramesh Sinha)
                                      Judge                                 Chief Justice

          Digitally signed
          by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY  Date:
       2025.04.13
          12:45:58 +0530
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here