1 2025:CGHC:50554-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 531 of 2025 Yuvraj Barle S/o Hemdhar Barle Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Haransindhi, Post Kasauda, P/s Ranchirai, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department (Jail), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Jail And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Through The Director, General Prisons, Jail Road, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector And District Magistrate Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh 4. The Superintendent Of Police Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.10 19:35:01 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/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 set-aside/quash the impugned memo dated 17.04.2025 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the application for release of the petitioner on parole, in accordance with law. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on parole in accordance with law in the interest of justice. 10.3 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 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Balod, vide judgment dated 10.11.2022, in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 45 of 2020, for the offences punishable under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. He has further been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment till natural death and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 384 of 2023 before this Court. Vide order dated 25.07.2024, this Court dismissed his application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. It is further submitted that the victim was a 13-year-old child who died after completion of the investigation; therefore, her statement could not be recorded before the learned trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner thereafter made an application dated 08.01.2025 before the Jail Superintendent seeking temporary release (parole), which was duly forwarded to the District Magistrate, Balod. However, the District Magistrate, vide order dated 17.04.2025, summarily rejected the said application without adhering to the mandate of the Chhattisgarh 4 Prisoners’ Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, “the Rules of 1989”). It is thus contended that the order dated 17.04.2025 suffers from non-application of mind and violation of statutory provisions, and is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The application for temporary release was considered by the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Balod, on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, who specifically recorded the objection of the victim’s family that the petitioner’s release, even temporarily, would pose a grave threat to their lives. In view of such observations and the apprehension expressed by the victim’s family, the competent authority rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for parole, warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.04.2025. 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. In such circumstances, the authority was justified in exercising due 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 at liberty to move 5 an application for urgent hearing in CRA No. 384 of 2023, if he so desires. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan