1 2025:CGHC:46719-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 502 of 2025 1. Rajesh Sahu S/o Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Anand Nagar, Kushmunda District- Korba Chhattisgarh Through his father-in-law Lachhu Ram Sahu S/o Late Suskhi Ram Aged About 54 Years Through His Father In Law R/o Village And Police Station And Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) 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 Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 4. The Superintendent of Police Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.12 18:38:29 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “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 20.05.2025 (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 other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), vide judgment dated 19.03.2024 in Sessions Trial No.18 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 3 148, 307/149 (two counts), 302/149 and 427/149 of the IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for different terms including imprisonment for life. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 743 of 2024 before this Court, which has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner thereafter made an application before the Jail Superintendent seeking temporary release (parole), which was duly forwarded to the District Magistrate, Korba. However, the District Magistrate, vide order dated 20.05.2025, rejected the said application summarily without following the mandate of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules of 1989"). It is thus submitted that the order dated 20.05.2025 suffers from non-application of mind and violation of statutory provisions, and is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences including murder under Section 302/149 of the IPC and his conviction has already been upheld in appeal. The application for temporary release was considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Korba, on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, who specifically recorded the objection of the victim’s family that if the petitioner is released even temporarily, there is a grave apprehension of danger to their lives. It is further pointed out that this Court in WPPIL 4 No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has already expressed its concern that several prisoners released on parole or short-term bail have absconded and have not returned to custody, thereby creating serious law and order issues. In light of such observations and considering the apprehension expressed by the victim’s family, the competent authority rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for parole, and no interference is warranted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.05.2025. The rejection of the petitioner’s application for temporary release is based not only on the nature and gravity of the offences for which he stands convicted, but also on the valid apprehension expressed by the victim’s family regarding threat to their lives. Furthermore, this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 has already observed the tendency of prisoners misusing the concession of parole and absconding, which has a direct bearing on public order and safety. In view of these circumstances, the authority was justified in exercising caution and rejecting the petitioner’s request. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan