1 2025:CGHC:22359-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 291 of 2025 Sarvesh @ Konda @ Bablu S/o Shri Harendra Manhar Aged About 26 Years R/o Mini Basti, Post Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Through His Wife- Janki Manhar, Wife Of Sarvesh @ Konda @ Bablu, About 21 Years, R/o Mini Basti, Post Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its, Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The District Magistrate Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27 . 05 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioner's leave case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court. 10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 To grant any others relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure-P/1) on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that there are five other cases registered against the petitioner and petitioner’s release is likely to lead disturb the public by threatening the witnesses and there is full possibility of breach of peace and absconding. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in jail since 10.03.2023 and has not been released on parole till date. He would further submit that the petitioner has spent approximately about 02 years, 02 months and 02 days as on 16.05.2025 in jail and his application for parole has been rejected by the respondent No.3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in 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 05.05.2025 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 3 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 District Magistrate, Bilaspur vide order dated 05.05.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that there are five other cases registered against the petitioner and petitioner’s release is likely to lead disturb the public by threatening the witnesses and there is full possibility of breach of peace and absconding. 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 Police station in- charge Civil Line, Bilaspur has expressed in his opinion that there are five other cases registered against the petitioner and petitioner’s release is likely to lead disturb the public by threatening the witnesses and there is full possibility of breach of peace and absconding. It further goes to show that the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, agreeing with the opinion of the Police Station In-charge Civil Line, Bilaspur has shown his disagreement on releasing the petitioner. Therefore, District Magistrate, agreeing with the report received, in public interest, has rejected the leave application of petitioner. 7. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, particularly, the opinion expressed by the Police station in-charge, Civil Line, Bilaspur that there are five other cases registered against the petitioner 4 and petitioner’s release is likely to lead disturb the public by threatening the witnesses and there is full possibility of breach of peace and absconding, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 05.05.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Bilaspur rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole) 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra