NANAKU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dtd. 29/1/2022 (Annexure-P-1) passed by respondent No. 3/the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Janjgir Champa (CG) whereby the application for grant of temporary release/parole to the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide judgment dtd. 8/5/2018 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, 'POCSO Act') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and other rigorous imprisonment, and, he is in jail since 14/3/2017. It is further submitted that after obtaining necessary requirement for benefit of temporary release under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (henceforth 'Rules 1989'), he filed an application for grant of temporary release/parole, which has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Janjgir Champa vide impugned order dtd. 29/1/2022 (Annexure P-1). He submits that the impugned order is per se illegal and against the object of the Rules, 1989. He also submits that the sureties of the petitioner are ready to furnish their surety and ward Panch has also stated no objection to allow parole to the petitioner. Despite that, only on the basis of objection raised by the family members of victim girl and police, application of the petitioner has been rejected. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be granted temporary release/parole.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner has been convicted for heinous offence including under POCSO Act and father of the victim girl has stated his apprehension that if parole is granted to the petitioner, he may commit other offence with his family, therefore, police has also raised objection