1 2025:CGHC:28890-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 351 of 2025 Dara Mamik S/o Premlal Malik Aged About 49 Years R/o Babu Up Nagar, Post Bilaspur, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Through His Friend Manoj Kumar Goswami, Son Of Ramchandra Goswami, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Hemu Nagar, Chandra Chowk, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur C.G. 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District- Durg 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. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.01 10:27:43 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “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 27.04.2024 (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 other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has served over 12 years and 4 months in jail, exceeding the minimum period required for parole eligibility. Despite this, the petitioner remains deprived of leave, which has adversely affected their family's survival due to financial hardship. The petitioner requests release on parole, citing their prolonged imprisonment and its impact on their family. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled to annual leave but has been denied it despite meeting the eligibility criteria. The petitioner argues that the respondent's 3 action is illegal and arbitrary, violating their fundamental rights. The release of convicts on parole is governed by the 1989 rules, which do not require the complainant's consent. The petitioner's denial of parole is alleged to be a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, warranting interference from the Hon'ble High Court to meet the ends of justice. He also submits that The denial of parole is challenged based on Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules 1989, which states that leave can only be denied if public safety is at risk. The petitioner argues that there is no material to support the Superintendent of Police's opinion, and Respondent No. 4 failed to properly apply their mind, acting solely on the memo without fulfilling their statutory duty. This makes the denial illegal. Having served over 12 years and 4 months, the petitioner is eligible for parole under the rules, and their family's distress due to prolonged imprisonment further supports their case for release, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 27.04.2024 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 District Magistrate Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 27.04.2024 observing that the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, reported the prisoner's behavior as average. However, Ward Councilor Ajay Kumar Yadav objected to the prisoner's parole, citing concerns about maintaining peace in the ward and ensuring the smooth conduct of upcoming elections. The victim's side also objected to the prisoner's temporary release. The Station House Officer, Torva, City Police 4 Superintendent, Kotwali, and Police Superintendent, Bilaspur, have all objected to the prisoner's temporary release, citing potential risks. Given these objections, it is apprehended that the prisoner's release on parole may lead to untoward incidents. 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 the Ward Councilor Ajay Kumar Yadav objected to the prisoner's parole, citing concerns about maintaining peace in the ward and ensuring the smooth conduct of upcoming elections, further victim's side also objected to the prisoner's temporary release. The Station House Officer, Torva, City Police Superintendent, Kotwali, and Police Superintendent, Bilaspur, have all objected to the prisoner's temporary release, citing potential risks. Given these objections, it is apprehended that the prisoner's release on parole may lead to untoward incidents. In view of the same, and in accordance with Section 31(c) of the Prisoners Leave Rules 1989, it is deemed inappropriate to grant parole to the prisoner, Dara Malik, son of Prem Lal Malik, aged 48 years, resident of Bapu Nagar, Torva, Bilaspur (CG), in order to maintain public order and peace, particularly in light of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 27.04.2024 passed by the District Magistrate Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby 5 dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law, if any, further cause of action arise. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet