1 2025:CGHC:51835-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 551 of 2025 Devlal Singh S/o Shobhit Ram Aged About 40 Years Prisoner No. 287/51 R/o Village Dwarikapur Khutanpara P.S. Ramanujnagar District Surajpur (C.G.) Through Devnath S/o Shobhit Ram Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Davna Post Patrapali P.S. Shreenagar District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector/ District Magistrate Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Ambikapur District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.17 15:02:55 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. H on'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.10.2025 1. Heard Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate appearing for the 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 quash the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 2. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on temporary leave as early as possible for a period as prescribed under Chhattisgarh Prisoner Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been undergoing life imprisonment for the last 12 years for the offence under Sections 302 and 326 of the IPC and has not been granted a single leave during this entire period, which amounts to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner had applied for leave under Rules 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, but the same has been rejected by the District Magistrate vide order dated 21.02.2025 without any application of mind, solely on the ground of adverse police report and objection by the victim’s family. It is submitted that the authorities have failed to consider the petitioner’s conduct in jail and other relevant factors as required under the Rules, and the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and mechanical exercise of power, hence liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the object of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, which aims to maintain a prisoner’s family and social ties. It is argued that the District Magistrate has mechanically rejected the petitioner’s application merely on the basis of police objection and the victim’s protest, without considering the favourable statements of the Jamanatdars and Gram Panchayat or recording any independent satisfaction. Reliance is placed on W.P.(Cr.) No. 29/2016 and W.P.(Cr.) No. 182/2015 (Santhram Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh), holding that police recommendation is not mandatory for grant of leave. It is contended that denial of leave despite 12 years of 4 imprisonment violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submits that the application for leave has been rightly rejected by the District Magistrate after due consideration of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and the objection raised by the victim’s family. It is contended that the petitioner has been convicted for a serious offence under Sections 302 and 326 of the IPC and his release may cause unrest or apprehension in the locality. The authority has acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order. It is further submitted that grant of parole or leave is not a matter of right but subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority, and therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed . 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. Upon careful examination of all documents and reports available 5 on record, it appears that the villagers and the Sarpanch have not raised any objection to the temporary release of the prisoner. However, the victim’s family, the Station House Officer, the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police, and the Superintendent of Police have strongly objected to the same. The victim’s family has expressed apprehension that the release of the prisoner may endanger their lives and that there is a likelihood of another serious incident occurring. In such circumstances, the possibility of a breach of peace or disturbance to public order cannot be ruled out if the prisoner is released on temporary leave. Considering that the prisoner has been convicted of a grave offence of murder and that both the victim’s family and the police authorities have opposed his release, it is evident that his temporary release would not be conducive to public interest or public tranquility. Hence, the grant of temporary leave to the prisoner does not appear to be justified. 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib