1 2025:CGHC:15208-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 180 of 2025 Syed Nadeem @ Bada Monu S/o Syed Haneef Aged About 30 Years Convict No. 7300/34, Lodged In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Thana-In-Charge, Police Station- Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For State/respondent : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.04 .2025 1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren,, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.02 10:08:48 +0530 2 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to release the petitioner for 16 days in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s leave Rule, 1889. (iii) Pass any other order the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur vide order dated 25.11.2022 under Sections 302/34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal being CRA No.723/2023 before this Court, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2024. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Raipur on 07.10.2024, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Raipur vide memorandum dated 09.10.2024, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 03.12.2024 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in 3 brevity 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 03.12.2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) vide order dated 03.12.2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that as many as 10 cases have been registered against the present petition for the same set of offences, as such, the petitioner could cause harm to the public at large on being releasing on leave. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 goes to show that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur has reported vide Letter No.Sr.P.A./D.C.R.B./Band.Mu./Rai./34-A/2024 dated 25.11.2024 that the prisoner is a habitual criminal, against whom as many as 10 cases have been registered at Police Station Telibandha, such as: (1) Crime No.323/19 for Sections 302, 34 IPC, (2) Crime No.137/12 for Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC, (3) Crime No.84/14 for Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC, (4) Crime No.241/14 for Sections 307, 34 IPC, (5) Crime No 271/15 for 4 Section 435 IPC, (6) Crime No.345/15 for Sections ection 294, 307 IPC, (7) Crime No.73/17 for Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC, (8) Crime No.190/17 for Sections 294, 323, 506, 327, 32 IPC, (9) Crime No.585/23 for Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, and (10) Crime No.311/17 for Sections 294, 506B, 327, 34 IPC and if the petitioner is to be released on parole, the possibility of an unpleasant situation would be arisen. It further goes to show that the Superintendent of Police, District Raipur, agreeing with the opinion of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur shown his disagreement on releasing the petitioner. Therefore, Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Raipur agreeing with the report received, in public interest, has rejected the leave application of petitioner. 7. Considering the conduct of the petitioner that as many as 10 cases have been registered against him in Police Station Telibandha, Raipur and further considering the fact that petitioner could cause harm to the life of the family of the deceased on being releasing on leave, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 03.12.2024 passed by Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Raipur rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu