1 2025:CGHC:34768-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 415 of 2025 Sujeet Kumar Rathia S/o Jageshwar Rathia Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhagora, Post Bhagora, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G., Through Is Father- Jageshwar Rathia, S/o Late Harishankar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Bhagora, Post Bhagora, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. ... Petitioner 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 Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, Raigarh District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.07.2025 1 Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.22 18:35:29 +0530 2 2 The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “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 05.12.2024 (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 others relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur as Prisoner No. 1938/136, serving a sentence upon conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The conviction was recorded by the competent Sessions Court and the sentence is being duly undergone. As on 23.06.2025, the petitioner has completed more than 05 years, 09 months and 19 days of imprisonment, including remission, and thus he has become eligible for consideration of leave under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989. The petitioner submitted an application before the Jail Superintendent for grant of leave, which was duly forwarded to the District Magistrate for opinion. On the basis of the District Magistrate’s recommendation and a vague, unsubstantiated report from the Superintendent of Police, Respondent No. 3 3 mechanically rejected the application without applying independent mind and without recording any specific reasons as required under Rule 6 of the 1989 Rules. The petitioner fulfills all the conditions prescribed under Rule 4 of the 1989 Rules, as he has served the minimum sentence, has not committed any jail offence, and is not otherwise disqualified under the Rules. Despite fulfilling all eligibility criteria, the leave was arbitrarily refused on irrelevant considerations. The action of Respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, mechanical, non-judicious, and violative of the petitioner's rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The authority failed to exercise discretion in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal denial of his statutory right to consideration of leave, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court by way of the present writ petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period exceeding three years, which satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 for grant of leave/parole. The petitioner has further served more than the minimum period required for the grant of such leave. There exists no disqualification or adverse material on record against the petitioner which would disentitle him from this benefit. However, despite fulfillment of all statutory and legal requirements, the petitioner has been arbitrarily deprived of his rightful claim to leave. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled, under the statutory framework, to leave in one calendar year. Despite fulfilling 4 all criteria as per the applicable rules, the petitioner has been unjustly denied this right, thereby violating his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of respondent no. 3 in withholding leave is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without any cogent justification. It has been contended that the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, which govern the grant of parole and leave, do not stipulate any requirement for obtaining the consent or concurrence of the complainant's side before considering such applications. The respondents, however, have arbitrarily refused the benefit of leave to the petitioner in violation of the governing statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards. It is further submitted that under Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, leave can only be denied where there exists a reasonable apprehension of threat to public safety or law and order due to the prisoner's release. In the present case, there is no substantive material to support the vague and unreasoned opinion expressed by the Superintendent of Police. The Respondent No. 4 has abdicated his statutory duty by mechanically accepting the opinion of the police without any independent application of mind. Such denial of leave is manifestly arbitrary and illegal. It has been submitted that the petitioner has served more than 04 years and 03 days imprisonment as on 07.07.2025, thereby fully satisfying the requirement for grant of parole as per the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. Therefore, the continued denial of his statutory right is wholly unjustified. He has placed reliance in the matter passed by this Court in WPCR No.318/2021 (Birendra @ Bindu v. State of Chhattisgarh and 5 others) vide order dated 16.03.2022, to buttress his submissions. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the claim of the petitioner for leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 has been duly considered by the competent authorities in accordance with the applicable rules and in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner's application was rejected after due consideration of the report and opinion of the Superintendent of Police, which indicated potential concerns with regard to law and order and public peace in case of the petitioner's release on leave. It is further submitted that although the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, do not explicitly mandate the consent of the complainant, it is well within the domain of the State authorities to assess the overall security and law and order situation in the locality. The opinion of the police authorities is a relevant consideration and has been rightly relied upon while exercising discretion in rejecting the petitioner’s leave application. It has been contended that parole or leave is not a matter of right but a discretionary relief granted subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority that release of the prisoner will not pose any threat to public order or safety. In the present case, upon due inquiry, the authorities have reasonably apprehended disturbance to peace or potential misuse of liberty if the petitioner is released temporarily. Hence, rejection of leave is neither arbitrary nor illegal. It is submitted that the Hon'ble 6 Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that the opinion of law enforcement agencies regarding the impact of a convict’s release on public order must be given due weight. The authorities have exercised their discretion judiciously based on such opinion and no mala fide can be attributed to them. It is further submitted that the impugned action does not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution as alleged. The decision is based on a valid exercise of statutory discretion under the 1989 Rules and is proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining public order and security. The principles of natural justice have been duly followed, and the petitioner’s application has been considered on merits. Therefore, the Court may not interfere in the present matter, as no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the decision-making process of the authorities. The petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions in the decision of the respondents rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for leave/parole. The authorities have exercised their discretion in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, after duly considering the report of the law enforcement agency regarding the potential impact on 7 law and order. 8 It is well-settled that release on parole or leave is not a matter of right but is subject to satisfaction of the competent authority based on relevant considerations, including public peace and security. No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the denial of leave to the petitioner is either mala fide or in violation of any legal right. 9 In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference in the decision of the authorities. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu