1 2025:CGHC:44857-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 485 of 2025 Smt. Jogni Kurre W/o Late Dhannu Kurre Aged About 44 Years Convicted Prisoner No. 622/03, R/o Jarhabhatha Mini Basti, Post Nehru Chowk, Police Station - Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - District Magistrate Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. 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 3.9.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, 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 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.09.04 10:35:00 +0530 2 following prayers: “(i) Call for entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. (ii) Quash the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 (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 proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 22(C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and, by order dated 19.06.2024, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years along with a fine of ₹1,50,000/-, and in default of payment, to further undergo six months of imprisonment. She is currently serving her sentence in Central Jail, Bilaspur, and has already completed more than 2 years and 5 months of incarceration. Being eligible for temporary release under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989, the petitioner applied for parole/leave of 14+2 days. Her application was submitted to the competent authority (respondent No. 2) and was thereafter forwarded to Respondent No. 3, who in turn sought a report from respondent No. 4 regarding the petitioner’s suitability for temporary release. The petitioner’s application was recommended by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, and was sent to the District Magistrate, Bilaspur for further consideration. However, respondent No. 3 rejected the 3 petitioner’s application by an order dated 15.07.2025, solely on the ground that no favourable recommendation was made by respondent No. 4 and citing a vague possibility of breach of peace. The petitioner contends that the rejection was done in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind, leading her to file the present petition challenging the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to settled principles of law. The petitioner’s application for temporary release/parole was rejected mechanically without proper application of mind, merely relying on the adverse opinion of respondent No. 4 and citing a vague possibility of breach of peace, without any independent assessment. This action reflects a clear failure to discharge duties under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989. Despite the petitioner submitting two sureties and having a legitimate desire to reconnect with her family and reintegrate into society, her request was denied without just cause. The right to parole is part of the broader principles of reformation and rehabilitation recognized under the law. In Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 15 SCC 55], the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that parole serves the important purpose of maintaining family and social ties, which is essential for reformation. Similarly, in Rakesh Shende v. State of Chhattisgarh, this Court held that parole falls within the ambit of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The respondents' actions are thus in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights, 4 especially Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and parole deserves to be granted to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the State has supported the impugned order by referring to the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, including seven criminal cases, many of which are serious in nature and include NDPS and Arms Act offences. The apprehension expressed by the police authorities regarding the likelihood of her absconding and causing public disorder cannot be said to be unfounded or irrelevant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 goes to show that the competent authority has duly considered all relevant aspects before rejecting the petitioner’s application for temporary release. The rejection is based on a detailed police report, which highlights the petitioner’s multiple past criminal cases, including serious offences under the NDPS Act, Excise Act, Arms Act, and the IPC. The report specifically raises a strong apprehension that if released, the petitioner may abscond or cause disruption to public peace. Furthermore, the authority has applied its mind to the potential impact on society and public order, and has concluded that the release of the petitioner, a habitual offender currently undergoing sentence for a serious NDPS offence, is not in public interest. Therefore, the order does not suffer from arbitrariness or 5 non-application of mind, and is a reasoned order in conformity with Rule 31(g) of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 15.07.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 9. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu