1 2025:CGHC:50791-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 535 of 2025 1 - Yogeshwar Sahu S/o Devraj Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bhardakala, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara C.G., Through His Brother Gumesh, S/o Devraj Sahu, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bhardakala, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara 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 Durg, District Durg C.G. 3 - The District Magistrate District Bemetara C.G. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police District Bemetara C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board (13.10.2025) Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Per, Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1. To 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 (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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been undergoing incarceration since 21.07.2021 and has completed more than four years and three months of imprisonment, thereby surpassing the minimum threshold of three years prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 for eligibility to seek leave. The petitioner fulfills all statutory conditions and suffers from no disqualification that would disentitle him from such relief. Despite being eligible under the applicable legal framework, he has not been granted any leave to date, amounting to an unjustified deprivation of 3 his statutory and fundamental rights. The action of Respondent No. 3 in withholding leave without cogent reason or adherence to due process is manifestly arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the mandate of Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, which stipulates that leave can be denied only where there is a credible apprehension of threat to public safety or security. In the present case, no substantive material has been placed on record to justify such apprehension, and the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, relied upon by Respondent No. 4, lacks evidentiary backing and demonstrates non- application of mind. Furthermore, the Rules do not condition the grant of leave or parole upon the consent or views of the complainant’s side. The continued denial of leave despite fulfillment of all statutory prerequisites and absence of any valid ground reflects a colourable exercise of power and abdication of statutory duties by the concerned authorities. In these circumstances, the intervention of this Hon’ble Court is warranted to rectify the illegality and ensure enforcement of the petitioner’s rights, thereby meeting the ends of justice. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for parole under the rules, and their family's distress due to prolonged imprisonment further supports their case for release, therefore, the order passed by the respondent authorities dated 04.07.2025 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 4 by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) has been duly considered and rejected by the Additional District Magistrate, Bemetara (C.G.) vide order dated 04.07.2025. It is contended that the petitioner stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has preferred a criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court, wherein his application seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail has already been rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking parole for a period of 14 days, which was dismissed by the respondent authorities vide its order dated 04.07.2025. The Police Superintendent has all objected to the prisoner's temporary release, citing potential risks. Given these objections apprehension that the release of the petitioner may pose a threat to the life and safety of the victim’s family members and their neighbours. Accordingly, it is argued that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the relevant facts and in the interest of public safety, and therefore does not call for interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. It is evident that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and is undergoing sentence since 21.07.2021. His application for grant of parole has been rejected by the competent 5 authority vide order dated 04.07.2025, taking into account the nature of offence, the rejection of his bail application by this Court in pending criminal appeal, and the report of the Superintendent of Police expressing apprehension that the petitioner’s release may pose a threat to the life and safety of the victim's family and others. In view of the concerns expressed in the official report and the pendency of the criminal appeal, this Court does not find sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for leave. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an urgent hearing application for early disposal of his pending criminal appeal, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands dismissed. 7. It is further relevant to note that a suo motu Public Interest Litigation was registered as WPPIL No.33/2025, and in the said petition, on 14.07.2025, this Court had taken note of the contents of the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, wherein the DGP had informed that as many as 24 such prisoners who were released on bail as of 09.07.2025 were absconding, and efforts were being made to apprehend them. Time and again, we have come across situations where the accused/convicts are released on bail / parole for a limited period, but taking advantage of their release order, some of the accused/ convicts flee and the Police has to make efforts to put them behind the bars for serving their sentence. This situation reflects the gravity of the risk involved in granting parole in certain cases and 6 underscores the need for a cautious and case-specific approach. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional District Magistrate Bemetara (C.G.) rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Saxena