1 2025:CGHC:24743-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 320 of 2025 1 - Sanju Yadav S/o Ramadhin Yadav Aged About 39 Years Convict No.-7874/37, Lodged In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Magistrate, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Thana In-Charge, Police Station - Kharora, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.19 10:55:45 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, 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: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents torelease the petitioner for 16 days in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989; 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge of Special Court for Trial of C.B.I. Cases, Raipur, Chhattisgarh vide order dated 08.08.2023 in Special Session Case No. 179/2021 and was sentenced for life imprisonment for 10 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/- with default stipulation. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal being CRA No. 1905/ 2023 before this Court. In the said appeal the 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 14.03.2024. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur on 03.10.2024, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Raipur, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 05.05.2025 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 05.05.2025 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 05.05.2025 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. 4 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, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) has expressed in his opinion that there is a possibility of happening of some untoward incident, in case of release of prisoner Sanju Yadav on ordinary leave as the victim’s family had expressed said apprehension on the release of the petitioner on leave. Therefore, Collector-cum-District Magistrate, agreeing with the report received, in public interest, has rejected the leave application of petitioner. 7. The apprehension which has been raised by the authority concerned that if the parole application is allowed there is every likelihood that the applicant would not surrender. This Court has also noticed the fact that the prisoners are not surrendering after they are being released on parole. In this respect, report was also called from the Superintendent of Police who has affirmed the apprehension of the detaining authority. 8. During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the State by referring the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh in WPPIL No. 33/2025 would submit that out of 30 prisoners released on parole since 18/03/2025 only 04 prisoners have surrendered as on 30/04/2025 and remaining 26 prisoners have been absconded and it is very difficult to arrest them. 5 9. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 05.05.2025 passed by Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar/Jyoti