1 2025:CGHC:50556-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 534 of 2025 Madan Lal Tekam S/o Ram Tekam Aged About 30 Years R/o Kahgaon (Gudatola), Post Kahgaon, P.S. And Tahsil Manpur, District Mohala- Manpur-Ambagarh-Chowki Chhattisgarh Through His Cousin Brother Sonu Koshle, Son Of Prakash Koshle, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... 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- Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh- Chowki (C.G.) 4. The Superintendent Of Police District- Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh- Chowki (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C.R. Sahu, 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. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 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 dated 28.05.2025 (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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is entitled to the fundamental rights under the Constitution. He also aspires to discharge his fundamental duties. The petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail Durg as prisoner No. 4260/50, serving sentences under Sections 363, 376(2), and 302 of the IPC. He has been in custody since 07.03.2015 and has already served 3 more than ten years and six months, thereby becoming eligible for release on leave under the C.G. Prisoners’ Leave Rules, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed an application for grant of leave with the Jail Superintendent, which was forwarded to the District Magistrate. The competent authority, respondent No. 3, rejected the application solely on the opinion of the Police Station In-charge, without independent consideration. It is contended that this action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner fulfills all eligibility criteria for leave, including serving the minimum period of two years (including remission), not having committed any jail offence, and complying with other conditions prescribed under Rule 4 of the C.G. Prisoners’ Leave Rules. The petitioner has also filed CRA No. 1889 of 2018, which was dismissed on 07.07.2023. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner’s application was duly considered by the competent authority and that the order dated 28.05.2025 rejecting the application was rightly passed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. On perusal of the order dated 28.05.2025, it is evident that the petitioner has served the minimum period required for eligibility. The victim’s family has expressed no objection to the petitioner’s release on parole. The competent authority, however, rejected the application 4 solely on the unsubstantiated opinion of the Police Station In-charge without independent reasoning. No specific danger to public safety has been demonstrated, and the statutory requirement under Rule 6 to refuse leave only if release is likely to endanger public safety has not been met. 8. In view of the above, the order dated 28.05.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s application for leave is set aside. The competent authority (respondent No. 3) is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application in accordance with the C.G. Prisoners’ Leave Rules, 1989, and to pass an order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed off with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan