1 2025:CGHC:55537-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 579 of 2025 Devendra Dewangan S/o Gendlal Dewangan, Aged About 29 Years Convicted Prisoner No. 3023/37, R/o Village- Arjunda, Police Station- Arjunda, District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - District Magistrate, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate For State/respondent : Mr. Shaleen Singh 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 Mr. Veer Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.11.14 15:24:56 +0530 2 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) Call for entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. (ii) Quash the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 (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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G. vide order dated 21.01.2020 under Sections 363, 364, 364A, 368 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 25(1B)B of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal being CRA No.486/2020 before this Court, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2024. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Raipur on 25.07.2025, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Balod vide memorandum dated 05.0.2025, but the same has been rejected by the office of respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 25.09.2025 summarily without following the relevant 3 provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 25.09.2025 is liable to be set 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 submits that the petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) was considered but ultimately rejected by the Additional Collector, Balod (C.G.) vide order dated 25.09.2025, on the basis of the communication received from the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg. It was reported that although the petitioner had submitted an application under Sections 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners’ Leave Rules, 1989, the same was returned with a direction to submit it duly in accordance with the Jail Rules along with the original documents. The Jail Superintendent further informed that, in terms of sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of Part-6A, Rule 31-B of the Chhattisgarh/M.P. Prisoners Act, 1985, emergency leave is permissible only in cases of death of certain close relatives or for the marriage of the prisoner or his immediate family members, therefore the petitioner was not eligible for emergency leave. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 4 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 goes to show that the petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected solely on the basis of the communication forwarded by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, wherein it was stated that although the petitioner had submitted an application under Sections 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners’ Leave Rules, 1989, he was required to resubmit the same duly in accordance with the Jail Rules along with the original documents. It was further noted that, as per sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of Part-6A, Rule 31-B of the Chhattisgarh/M.P. Prisoners Act, 1985, emergency leave is permissible only in cases of death of certain close relatives or for the marriage of the prisoner or his immediate family members, and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for emergency leave. Therefore, Additional Collector, Balod agreeing with the report received has rejected the leave application of petitioner. 7. Considering the report of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, indicating that the petitioner is not eligible for emergency leave under sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of Part-6A, Rule 31-B of the Chhattisgarh/M.P. Prisoners Act, 1985, and further taking into account the fact that the petitioner’s application under Sections 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners’ Leave Rules, 1989 was not found to be in accordance with the prescribed Jail Rules, the authority proceeded to reject his request for temporary release. In view of the aforesaid factual position and the assessment made 5 by the competent authority that the petitioner’s release on leave may not be appropriate, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Additional Collector, Balod rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole). 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu