1 2025:CGHC:55065-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 565 of 2025 Punit Ram Nishad @ Punit Nishad S/o Shri Tijram Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Beltukari, Post- Pasid, Police Station - Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General, Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter-Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District- Magistrate, Bilaspur C.G. 4 - The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.11.13 15:26:01 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.3 in Criminal Case No. 10/2025 and the application (Annexure P/3) filed by the petitioner under C.G. Prisoners leave Rule 1989 may kindly be allowed; 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur C.G. vide order dated 04.09.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 240/2021 for offence under Sections 376(D) & 506 Part-II of IPC and was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and 02 years respectively with default stipulation. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a 3 criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 470/ 2025 before this Court. The petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 16.04.2025 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rules 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (for short, ‘Rules of 1989’) as well as Rules 6, 3, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules of 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 16.04.2025 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 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, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 16.04.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned police authorities expressing their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to the life of others on being releasing on leave. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur has expressed in his opinion that there is a possibility of happening of some untoward incident, in case of release of prisoner Punit Ram Nishad on 4 ordinary leave. Therefore, Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur agreeing with the report received, in public interest, has rejected the leave application of petitioner. The apprehension which has been raised by the authority concerned that if the parole application is allowed there is every likelihood that the applicant would not surrender. 7. It is also noteworthy that the present petitioner preferred an appeal bearing CRA No. 470/2025 before this Court, which has also been dismissed today itself, with other connected matters bearing leading case CRA No. 1978/2024, considering the offence committed by the present petitioner/ accused therein is heinous in nature, hence, the present petition seeking grant of temporary leave (parole) is also liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the above and considering the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 16.04.2025 passed by Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur, (C.G.) rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 9. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar