1 2025:CGHC:50427-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 503 of 2025 Shanikumar S/o Jethuram Aged About 35 Years Convict No. 6977/31, Aged About 35 Years, Lodged In Raipur Central Jail C.G. ... Petitioner(s) 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- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.10 16:13:56 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahare, 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 09.10.2025 1. Heard Ms Ishwari Ghritlahare, 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) Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside order dated 27.12.2024 (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, 1889; (iii) 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 for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(3), 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to 3 undergo Rigorous imprisonment of 20 years amongst other sentences. The petitioner is serving his sentence in Central Jail, Raipur. He has served more than 5 years in Central Jail, Raipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Raipur, who recommended and forwarded the application to the District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). Learned counsel submits that the respondent no. 3 dismissed the petitioner's application vide impugned order dated 27.12.2024 only on the ground that no favourable recommendation has been made by the respondent no. 4 for release of the petitioner. He further submits that the District Magistrate has merely endorsed the opinion of the Superintendent of Police,, without independently assessing the case of the petitioner. It was contended that, as per the police report, statements of the proposed surety and of several persons, namely Jethu Ram Chouhan (father of the victim), Kamal Patel (Sarpanch), Reshu (Panch), Ramprasad Chouhan (Panch), and villagers Rajendra Sahu and Hiralal Chouhan, were recorded. None of these persons raised any objection to the release of the petitioner. However, this relevant fact was completely overlooked by the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 27.12.2024 is liable to be set 4 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 27.12.2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner is undergoing sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and the said case is of a very serious and sensitive nature; therefore, it is not considered appropriate to release the prisoner, Shani Kumar, 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 the District Magistrate, while considering the petitioner’s application for grant of ordinary leave (parole), has recorded that the opinion of the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund, does not recommend release of the petitioner on parole. It has further been noted that though one surety, namely Jethu Ram, father of the prisoner, has undertaken responsibility to keep the prisoner under his care and supervision during the period of leave, the second surety, Tarachand, son of Ramsay, resident of Village Khaparidih, was found to be residing outside his place of residence. As per the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, the presence of two reliable sureties is a mandatory 5 requirement for consideration of release on parole. In view of the absence of the second surety and considering the serious and sensitive nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, the District Magistrate found it inappropriate to recommend his release on parole. 7. 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. 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 27.12.2024 passed by Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Mahasamund , District Mahasamund (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