1 2025:CGHC:51324-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 547 of 2025 Punaram Nageshia S/o Sanu Nageshia Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Bharatpur, Bhursatoli, Police Station- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, (C.G.). 2 - The Collector and District Magistrate Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 3 - The Superintendent of Police Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Shankargarh, Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15 . 10 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the authorities to release the petitioner on parole, in accordance with law. ii. That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), vide judgment dated 30.05.2023 in Sessions Trial No.134 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for two months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 1451 of 2023 before this Court, in which though the application for suspension of sentence has been rejected, but the same is pending for final disposal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as the petitioner is in jail since 17.06.2021 and as such, the petitioner has made an application before the Jail Superintendent seeking temporary release (parole), which was duly forwarded to the District Magistrate, Ramanujganj. However, the District Magistrate, vide order dated 3 21.07.2025, rejected the said application summarily without following the mandate of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules of 1989"). It is thus submitted that the order dated 21.07.2025 suffers from non-application of mind and violation of statutory provisions, and is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences including murder under Section 302 of the IPC and his application for suspension of sentence has already been rejected, though the same is pending for final disposal. The application for temporary release was considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Ramanujganj, on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, who specifically recorded the objection of the victim’s family that if the petitioner is released even temporarily, there is a grave apprehension of danger to their lives. It is further pointed out that this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has already expressed its concern that several prisoners released on parole or short-term bail have absconded and have not returned to custody, thereby creating serious law and order issues. In light of such observations and considering the apprehension expressed by the victim’s 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 21.07.2025. The rejection of the petitioner’s application for temporary release is based 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’s family regarding threat to their lives. Furthermore, this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 has already observed the tendency of prisoners misusing the concession of parole and absconding, which has a direct bearing on public order and safety. In view of these circumstances, the authority was justified in exercising caution and rejecting the petitioner’s request. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to move an application for urgent hearing for disposal his appeal as he is in jail since 17.06.2021. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra