1 2025:CGHC:32480-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 395 of 2025 Deepak Nishad S/o Ramkumar Nishad Aged About 30 Years By Caste - Kenwat, R/o Lalkhadan, Village- Mahmand, Police Station- Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home, Department Of Home Affairs Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director General, Prisons, Jail Road Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - The District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - The Superintendnet Of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Station House Officer, Police Station- Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, 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 Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, 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 set aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 (P/1) passed by the respondent No.4. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner on parole, as per the provision of law. 10.3. That, any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with costs of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Bilaspur C.G. vide order dated 11.07.2023 in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 18/2022 for offence under sections 363/34, 366(क)/34 of the IPC and Section 5(छ)/6 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 07 3 years, 10 years and 20 years respectively with default stipulation. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 1669/ 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 24.04.2024. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 4 vide impugned order dated 14.05.2025 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. 4 dated 14.05.2025 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, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 14.05.2025 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, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) has expressed in his opinion that there is a possibility of happening of some untoward incident, in case of release of prisoner Deepak Nishad 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 14.05.2025 passed by Collector-cum- 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 dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar/Jyoti