Rape Convict Denied Parole On Apprehension That Being A Naxal He Might Abscond: Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Him Relief

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted relief to a rape convict who was denied parole on the apprehension expressed by the Incharge of Police Station that since the convict belongs to the Naxal affected area, there is a possibility of his absconding.

The bench of Justice N. K. Chandravanshi observed that only because of the objection raised by the Incharge of Police Station, the same could not be used as an absolute barrier to grant leave to the convict, which is a right created under Section 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989.

With this, the Court directed the Additional District Magistrate to issue the necessary release order granting leave/parole to the convict for the period applied by him within a period of 15 days. 

The case in brief

The petitioner/convict has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(B)(II), 376(2B) and 506B of the Indian Penal Code and is in Jail for about 06 years. He made an application for a grant of leave under Rule 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rule 1989.

The Additional District Magistrate, Gariyaband (CG) rejected the application filed by the petitioner/convict seeking parole of 12 days including journey period on the ground of apprehension made by the in charge of the police station that being a naxal he might abscnd. Challenging the same, the convict moved the High Court.

The Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the note attached to Rule 6(a) of the 1989 rules provides that there is only one ground on which leave can be refused by the District Magistrate i.e. only in a case where he is satisfied that the release of the prisoner is fraught with danger to the public safety and under no other circumstances can the leave be refused as a matter of routine without any cogent reason.

Against this backdrop, the Court stressed that the responsibility for the action under Rule 1989 has been entrusted to the District Magistrate, and hence, it is expected that such responsibility is complied with considering the object of granting parole.

Significantly, the Court noted that in the instant matter, the station in charge had not stated any reasonable ground for his apprehension, and rather, the victim and Sarpanch of the said village had made no objection with regard to the grant of parole to the petitioner and even the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur had recommended for grant of parole to the petitioner.

"Rules of 1989 have been enacted with certain object, therefore, application for grant of parole should be considered bearing in mind to those objects. Rejection of such application on any of the ground, which is not reasonable, the object of framing aforesaid Rule would be frustrated. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole as per Rules of 1989," the Court further remarked as it granted relief to the convict.

Case title - Kamlesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh and others [WPCR No. 228 of 2022]

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 61

Click Here To Read/Download Order