1 2025:CGHC:59901-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 623 of 2025 Balvindar Singh S/o Dalbir Singh, aged about 43 years R/o V.P.O. Vithawan, P/o. Bham, P.S. Batala Shrihar, Govindpur, District Gurdaspur (Punjab) Through His Friend Jatinder Singh Bal, Son of Kashmir Singh, B-303, Avinash Pride Heerapur, Tatibandh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Magistrate Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent of Police Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 . 12 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State / respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs : “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 consider the representation of the petitioner for seeking to get benefit of parole 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. Counsel for the petitioner has not moved any application under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 for grant of parole to the petitioner before the competent authority as has been pointed out by the learned State counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said application is not being received by the competent authority, but, on a pointed query being from him that in which paragraph the said fact has been mentioned, he states that the said fact has not been mentioned. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra