1 2025:CGHC:22899-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 273 of 2025 1 Saleem Nag S/o Rajaram Nag Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Barkai, Police Station - Farasgaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Jail And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh The Director General Prisoner, Jail Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Collector / District Magistrate, Kondagaon, Distt. - Kondagaon (C.G.) 4 Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Jagdalpur, District - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 5 Superintendent Of Police Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.10 17:54:08 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.05.2025 1. Heard Ms. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ 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 from respondents pertaining to petition for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the order/memo dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him in the application for 14+2 days leave. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), vide order dated 20.01.2022 in POCSO Case No. 07/2021 and was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for life (till his natural death). Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal being CRA No. 291 of 2022 before this Court. In the said appeal the 3 petitioner herein filed an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, which was dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.07.2023. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Jagdalpur on 11.07.2024, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Kondagaon, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 05.12.2024 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rules 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (for short, ‘Rules of 1989’) as well as Rules 6, 3, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules of 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 05.12.2024 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, Kondagaon (C.G.) vide order dated 05.12.2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that victim’s family had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to the life of victim 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 goes to show that Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) has expressed in his opinion that there is a possibility of some untoward incident happening due to prisoner Saleem Nag coming on ordinary leave as the victim’s family had expressed their apprehension on being releasing the petitioner on leave. Therefore, Collector-cum-District Magistrate, agreeing with the report 4 received, in public interest, has rejected the leave application of petitioner. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 05.12.2024 passed by Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Saurabh