1 2025:CGHC:55538-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 581 of 2025 Masuk Raza Mansuri S/o Yakub Masuri Aged About 24 Years R/o Gopalpur, P.S. And District Surajpur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law Department, Atal Nagar, New Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2. Director General Of Police (Jail) Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3. Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. 4. Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : 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 14.11.2025 1. Heard Ms. Sareena Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.14 15:02:36 +0530 2 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 allow this petition and quashed the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the respondent No. 4, and grant of parole to the petitioner for the 14 days, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief(s) as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed to fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), Surajput, District Surajpur (C.G.), vide judgment dated 20.12.2023 in Special Sessions Case No. 67 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 363/34 IPC (R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default R.I. for 6 months), 366/34 IPC (R.I. for 6 years and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default R.I. for 6 months), 376D IPC (R.I. for 20 years and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default R.I. for 6 months), 506/34 IPC (R.I. for 2 years and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default R.I. for 6 months), Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (R.I. for 20 years and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default R.I. for 6 months), Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (R.I. for 5 years and fine of ₹1,00,000/-, in default R.I. for 6 months), and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2015 (R.I. for life and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default R.I. for 4 months). It is stated that 3 challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2024 before this Court; however, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter the petitioner submitted an application before the Jail Superintendent seeking temporary release (parole). The application was duly forwarded to the District Magistrate, Surajpur, but the District Magistrate, by order dated 09.10.2025, summarily rejected the same without adhering to the mandate of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners’ Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, “the Rules of 1989”). It is contended that the order dated 09.10.2025 is vitiated on account of non-application of mind and violation of statutory provisions, and thus merits quashing. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(D) of the IPC. The petitioner’s application for temporary release was considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Surajpur, on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, who specifically recorded the objection of the victim’s family that the petitioner’s release, even temporarily, would pose a grave threat to their lives. In view of the observations and the apprehension expressed by the victim and her 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 4 09.10.2025. The rejection of the petitioner’s application for temporary release is founded 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 and her family regarding threat to their lives. In such circumstances, the authority was justified in exercising due 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