1 2025:CGHC:57151-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 599 of 2025 Tikeshwar Jaiswal S/o Sudhu Ram Jaiswal Aged About 29 Years Convict No. 6451/26 Lodged In Raipur Central Jail, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Magistrate Balodabazar District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar - Bhatapara District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Thana In- Charge Police Station Suhela, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25 . 11 .202 5 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, 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: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to release the Petitioner for 16 days in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner's leave Rule, 1889; (iii) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was convicted under Section 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and Section 06 POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment of 20 years by the learned Additional Session Judge Bhatapara, District Baloda-Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.). The said prisoner is presently lodged in Central jail Raipur. The petitioner filed Cr.A.No. 74/2023 challenging his conviction before the Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner’s application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was rejected by the Hon'ble Court by way of order dated 25.08.2023. She further submits that the petitioner has spent about 5 years 8 month in jail in imprisonment. The petitioner is eligible for grant of parole as per the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and as such, the petitioner has made an application before the Jail Superintendent seeking temporary release (parole), 3 which was duly forwarded to the District Magistrate, Baloda Bazar. However, the District Magistrate, vide order dated 01.08.2025, rejected the said application summarily without following the mandate of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules of 1989") only on the ground that the petitioner was only 29 years old and had committed a serious offence and the victim’s family expressed their concern that the petitioner may physically harm them if he was released from jail. It is thus submitted that the order dated 01.08.2025 suffers from non-application of mind and violation of statutory provisions, and is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences under Section 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and Section 06 POCSO Act and his application for suspension of sentence has already been rejected, though the appeal is pending for final disposal. The application for temporary release was considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Baloda-Bazar, on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, who specifically recorded the objection of the victim’s family that if the petitioner is released even temporarily, there is a grave apprehension of danger to their lives. 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 4 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. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.08.2025. 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 valid apprehension expressed by the victim’s family regarding threat to their lives. 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. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to move an application for urgent hearing for disposal his appeal as he is in jail since 14.01.2020. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra