1 2025:CGHC:51575-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 550 of 2025 1 - Anil Das Vaisnav S/o Gokul Das Vaisnav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Medhapali, Post Bichiya, Police Station Saraypali, Tahsil Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sarati Vaisnav W/o Gokul Das Vaisnav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Medhapali, Post Bichiya, Police Station Saraypali, Tahsil Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh .. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its, Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Magistrate Mahasamund District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.17 10:31:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the 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 07.07.2025 (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 presently lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur, as Prisoner No. 1820/135, undergoing imprisonment pursuant to conviction under Sections 363, 366, and 304 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, following the 3 conclusion of the Sessions Trial. The petitioner has already served more than three years, five months, and nine days of imprisonment as on 23.09.2025, thereby fulfilling the eligibility criteria for consideration of leave under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred an application for leave before the Jail Superintendent, which was forwarded to the District Magistrate for opinion. However, based solely on the unsubstantiated and non-speaking opinion of the Superintendent of Police, and without any independent assessment or application of mind, respondent No. 3 has arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s request for leave. It is urged that the said action is violative of Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, which mandates that leave can be refused only when the sanctioning authority is satisfied that the prisoner’s release would be prejudicial to public safety. 4. It is further submitted that as per Rule 4 of the said Rules, the only conditions to be satisfied for grant of leave are that it should not be against public interest and that the prisoner has not committed any jail offence. The petitioner fulfills all these conditions, having completed the minimum qualifying period of imprisonment (including remission), and no disqualification exists against him. The grant of leave serves a reformatory and rehabilitative purpose, allowing convicts to maintain social ties and reintegrate with society. The denial of leave to the petitioner, despite clear eligibility, is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the object of the Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. 4 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences under Sections 363, 366, 304 of the IPC & Section 6 of the POCSO Act and his conviction has already been upheld in appeal. The application for temporary release was considered by the District Magistrate Mahasamund, District- Mahsamund on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, who specifically recorded the that releasing the prisoner on leave is likely to harm public peace and public interest in the village. 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, the competent authority rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for parole, and no interference is warranted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.07.2025. 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 threat to public peace and interest. 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 5 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 Manpreet