1 2025:CGHC:40030-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 453 of 2025 Kamlesh Dewangan @ Monu S/o Ram Kishan Dewangan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Matkhodwapara, Changorabhatha, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District Raipur C.G., Through His Wife Yogeshwari, W/o Kamlesh Dewangan @ Monu, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Mathodwapara Changorabhatha, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District Raipur C.G., ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 The District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 The Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. G.M. Hasan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.12 10:40:47 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. G.M. Hasan, 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: “10.1To 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 30.07.2025 (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. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) was rejected by the District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) vide order dated 30.07.2025, a copy of which has been filed vide Annexure P/1, against which the petitioner has preferred the present petition for a direction to the District 3 Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) to consider the prayer of the petitioner as the petitioner is in jail since the year 2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 457, 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO and is languishing in jail since more than five years. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the office of respondent No. 3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989') and the respondents have acted arbitrarily violating Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 30.07.2025 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. 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, Raipur (C.G.) vide order dated 30.07.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that victim’s family had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to the life of victim on being releasing on leave. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that Superintendent of Police, Raipur (C.G.) has expressed in his opinion that there is a 4 possibility of happening of some untoward incident, in case of release of prisoner Kamlesh Dewangan @ Monu on ordinary leave as the victim’s family had expressed said apprehension on the release of the petitioner on leave. Therefore, Collector-cum-District Magistrate, agreeing with the report received, in public interest, has rejected the leave application of petitioner. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 30.07.2025 passed by Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (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 Jyoti/ Amar