1 2025:CGHC:39414-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 450 of 2025 1 - Shubham Karosiya S/o Santosh Karosiya Aged About 27 Years R/o Bandhvapara Police Station- Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 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, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.08 18:28:36 +0530 2 6 - Station House Officer Police Station- Sarkanda Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. M. Asha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.08.2025 1. Heard Mrs. M. Asha, 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 27.06.2025 (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 relief which this Hon’ble Court 3 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 Additional Sessions Judge Second Fast Track Special Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 313 of the IPC and Sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for four months, R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months, RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months and RI for twenty years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal being CRA No. 441/2024 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 this Court vide order dated 12.06.2024. 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 4 27.06.2025 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. 4 dated 27.06.2025 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, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 27.06.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that petitioner is of a criminal nature, and his family is exerting pressure on the victim’s side for his release and victims’ family have expressed fear and apprehension regarding his potential release. If the prisoner is released on parole, there is a strong likelihood that he may commit a serious offence against the victim party, leading to untoward incident. 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 Shubham 5 Karosiya 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. 7. Having considered the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police wherein it was observed that petitioner is of a criminal nature, and his family is exerting pressure on the victim’s side for his release and victims’ family have expressed fear and apprehension regarding his potential release and there is also 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, and also the fact that this Court has noticed that the prisoners are not surrendering after they are being released on parole and in this respect, report was also called from the Superintendent of Police who has affirmed the apprehension of the detaining authority, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 27.06.2025 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 Shoaib/Amardeep