1 2025:CGHC:39413-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 449 of 2025 1 - Birendra Kumar Halba S/o Johari Ram Aged About 35 Years Convicted Prisoner No. 3712/44, R/o Village- Faradfod, Post- Faradfod, Police Station- Devri, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Magistrate Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.08 12:15:15 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Banjare, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Veer Verma, 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 Mr Abhishek Banjare, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Veer Verma, 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: That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: (I) Call for entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner (ii) quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 3 and order may kindly be passed for temporary release/parole of the petitioner for 14 + 2 days (iii) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and 3 proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and R.I. for 01 year respectively and to pay fine of Rs. 1000-1000, in default of payment of fine amounts, additional R.I. for 01- 01 months. The petitioner is serving his sentence in Central Jail, Durg. He has served more than 4 years and 10 months in Central Jail, Durg. He is entitled for temporary release on parole/leave for 14 + 2 days, therefore filed an application before respondent no. 2 which was forwarded to respondent no. 3, wherein report was called from respondent no. 4 with regard to the temporary release, leave /parole of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is governed by the Prison Act 1900 and submitted an application for release under Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 before the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg recommended his release and forwarded her application to the District Magistrate, Balod, District Balod (C.G.). Learned counsel submits that the respondent no. 3 dismissed the petitioner's application vide impugned order dated 30.04.2024 only on the ground that no favourable recommendation has been made by the respondent no. 4 for release of the petitioner, Village Panchayat also not recommended for the leave of the petitioner and there is likelihood of breach of peace in 4 society, therefore application of the petitioner has been dismissed mechanically ,therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 30.04.2024 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 30.04.2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the victim’s family had expressed their apprehension to the petitioner being granted leave, citing poor family relations with her and his parents. 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, Balod District Balod (C.G.) has expressed in his opinion that the wife of the petitioner, the surety, the Sarpanch, and the victim’s family have expressed their objection to the release of the petitioner on leave by citing their apprehension. Therefore, Collector-cum-District Magistrate, agreeing with the report received, in public interest, has rejected the leave application of petitioner. 7. The apprehension which has been raised by the authority concerned that if the parole application is allowed there is every 5 likelihood that the applicant would not surrender. This Court has also noticed the fact that the prisoners are not surrendering after they are being released on parole. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 30.04.2024 passed by Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib/Amardeep