1 2025:CGHC:53764-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 566 of 2025 Chandrakant S/o Sukhdev Prasad Aged About 48 Years Prisoner No. 1366/133 R/o Mangla Chauk, Nehru Nagar, Janta Quarter P.O. Nehru Chauk, P.S. Civil Line District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector/ District Magistrate Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.04 18:10:44 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Leekesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. H on'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04/11/2025 1. Heard Shri Leekesh Kumar,, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State. 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 quash the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 2. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on parole as early as possible for a period as prescribed under Chhattisgarh Prisoner Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may 3 deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a convicted under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, undergoing 20 years’ imprisonment since 25.06.2022, and has not been granted even a single leave during his incarceration of more than three years, which is violative of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner had applied for leave under Rules 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, but the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, vide order dated 04.09.2025, rejected the application solely on the ground that the Superintendent of Police and the victim had objected to the petitioner’s release. The said order suffers from non-application of mind, as the authority failed to independently consider the petitioner’s conduct in jail or the reformative intent of the leave provisions. Learned counsel contends that mere objection by the victim or adverse police recommendation cannot be the sole basis to deny statutory leave, particularly when there is no material suggesting any likelihood of misuse of liberty or threat to public peace. It is urged that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) be quashed and the petitioner be granted leave in accordance with the Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, ensuring a fair exercise of discretion consistent with constitutional guarantees. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 4 impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s application for leave is arbitrary, mechanical, and contrary to the spirit and object of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. The authorities have failed to apply their mind to the statements of the sureties and Gram Panchayat, who had raised no objection to the petitioner’s release. The rejection was based merely on the victim’s objection and the non- recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, without recording any reason as to how the petitioner’s temporary release would be detrimental to public peace or security. It is further contended that the Rules of 1989 are reformative in nature and intended to ensure the prisoner’s rehabilitation and family contact, irrespective of the offence committed. The Hon’ble High Court, in W.P.(Cr.) No. 29/2016 and W.P.(Cr.) No. 182/2015 (Santhram Sinha case), has held that police permission is not mandatory for granting leave under the said Rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s 80-year-old mother wishes to meet him at the last stage of her life, and the denial of such opportunity violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and supported the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate. It was submitted that the District Magistrate has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for leave based on the report of the Superintendent of Police, who, after due inquiry, found that the victim strongly objected to the petitioner’s release. The objection of the victim, being a relevant consideration 5 under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, cannot be ignored in cases involving serious and heinous offences under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. It was further contended that the petitioner has been convicted for grave offences against a minor girl, and his temporary release is likely to disturb public peace and cause trauma to the victim’s family, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Hon’ble Court in the well-reasoned administrative decision passed by the District Magistrate. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, it is observed that the petitioner, a convicted prisoner under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, has been undergoing 20 years of rigorous imprisonment since 25.06.2022. On a pointed query made from the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been fairly stated that the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence has already been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 07.03.2025, and the conviction has thus attained finality. 7. It is further evident that the Superintendent of Police and the victim have objected to the petitioner’s release on leave, citing possible disturbance of public peace and apprehension of threat to the victim’s family. The District Magistrate, after considering these objections, has rejected the petitioner’s application for leave. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or mechanical, as the competent authority has exercised its discretion based on relevant 6 material and in accordance with Rules 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. 8. Considering the gravity of the offence and the objections raised by the local police and the victim, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The contention that the petitioner’s mother is aged and desires to meet him, though sympathetic, cannot override the security concerns and the seriousness of the offence for which the petitioner stands convicted. 9. 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 Shoaib