1 2025:CGHC:32477-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 391 of 2025 Kamalnarayan Sahu S/o. Late Jagluram, Aged About 62 Years R/o. Village Kosmi, P.S. Daundilohara, District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Jail, Central Jail, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police, District Balod (C.G.) 5 – S.H.O., Police Station, Daundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.15 10:41:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, 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. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 20.06.2025 (P/1) passed by the office of respondent No.3 and direct the respondent No.3 to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him for a period of 14 days. ii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Balod, District Balod, C.G. vide order dated 25.01.2024 in Sessions Case No. 87/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 376D, 302/120B & 450/120B of the IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment with default stipulation. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 3 371/ 2024 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 20.08.2024. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Balod, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 20.06.2025 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 20.06.2025 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, Balod (C.G.) vide order dated 20.06.2025 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. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 4 6. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that Superintendent of Police, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) has expressed in his opinion that there is a possibility of happening of some untoward incident, in case of release of prisoner Kamalnarayan Sahu 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. 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. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 20.06.2025 passed by Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Balod, District Balod (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 S. Bhilwar/Jyoti