1 2025:CGHC:33178-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 401 of 2025 Suresh Khunte S/o Madhu Khunte Aged About 38 Years Convict No. 8138 /39, Lodged In Raipur Central Jail Raipur District - 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 Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Thana In- Charge Police Station Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.17 10:24:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.07.2025 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 certiorary and set aside order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Mahasamund. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to release the petitioner for 16 days in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s leave Rule, 1989; ii. 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 First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, C.G. vide order dated 12.12.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 460, 396, 201 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. 105/ 2024 before this Court which was 3 dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Mahasamund, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 27.05.2025 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 27.05.2025 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, Mahasamund (C.G.) vide order dated 27.05.2025 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 family of the 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. 6. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund (C.G.) has expressed in his 4 opinion that there is a possibility of happening of some untoward incident, in case of release of prisoner Suresh Khunte 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 27.07.2025 passed by Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (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