1 2025:CGHC:56239-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 589 of 2025 Masih Prakash Toppo S/o Atal Oraon Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Barbaspur, P.S. Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate Surajpur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Surajpur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Station House OfÏcer Police Station - Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.20 10:50:30 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amit Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19/11/2025 1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar, 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: “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the authorities to release the petitoiner on parole, in accordance with law. ii. That any other relief/order which may deem fit 3 and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 09.07.2025, whereby the petitioner’s application for release on parole has been rejected, is unjustified, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner was convicted under Section 376(D) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act by judgment dated 28.02.2022 in Special Criminal Case No. 544/2019, against which the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 462/2022, before this Court which has been dismissed on 03.07.2025. The petitioner has been continuously in custody since the date of conviction and has already undergone more than 3 years and 9 months of his sentence, without being granted parole even once. 4. Learned counsel further submits that while considering the petitioner’s application for parole, the Sarpanch, the village residents as well as the victim’s family have clearly stated that they have no objection to the petitioner being released on parole. The petitioner’s jail conduct has also been exemplary, and there is no adverse report from jail authorities. However, solely on the 4 basis of a vague and non-specific objection by the Station House OfÏcer and the Sub-Divisional Police OfÏcer, without assigning any concrete or legally sustainable reason, the Collector has rejected the petitioner’s parole application. Such an order is mechanical, non-speaking and contrary to settled legal principles. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka (1997 CrLJ 1508), as well as in Suresh Chandra (AIR 1976 SC 2462) and Kishan Lal (AIR 1976 SC 1139), has emphasized that parole must be granted liberally and should be used as a reformative tool. Denial of parole despite the petitioner fulfilling all eligibility criteria is therefore arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of these judgments. He lastly argued that the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 may be set aside and the petitioner be released on parole. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner stands convicted for grave offences under Section 376(D) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and his criminal appeal (Cr.A. No. 462/2022) challenging the conviction has already been dismissed by this Court on 03.07.2025, thereby afÏrming the findings of guilt recorded by the trial court. In view of the afÏrmed conviction, the petitioner cannot claim parole as a matter of 5 right. 6. It is further submitted that the Station House OfÏcer, Ramanujnagar, and the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Police), Premnagar, have categorically reported that release of the petitioner on parole is not appropriate. On the basis of these adverse reports, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, have not recommended his release. Hence, the Collector has rightly rejected the parole application through the order dated 09.07.2025. 7. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. On perusal of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and the In-charge OfÏcer, Surajpur, along with the materials enclosed therein, it emerges that specific objections have been raised by the victim side, the Station House OfÏcer, Ramanuganj, and the Sub-Divisional Police OfÏcer, Pratappur, regarding the temporary release of the prisoner. The authorities have categorically opined that, if released on temporary leave, the prisoner is likely to repeat the offence, intimidate or influence the prosecution witnesses, and may cause breach of peace, 6 thereby disturbing the law-and-order situation in the village. Although the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Barbaspur has not expressed any objection, the consistent view of the police authorities cannot be disregarded, particularly when the possibility of untoward incidents in the locality has been specifically highlighted. It is further noted that the prisoner’s appeal has also been dismissed by this Court, and thus no substantive ground or mitigating circumstance survives to justify his temporary release. 9. During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the State by referring the afÏdavit filed by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh in WPPIL No. 33/2025 would submit that out of 30 prisoners released on parole since 18/03/2025 only 04 prisoners have surrendered as on 30/04/2025 and remaining 26 prisoners have been absconded and it is very difÏcult to arrest them. 10. In light of these facts, this Court is of the considered view that granting temporary release to the prisoner would be prejudicial to public interest and is likely to disturb peace and public order. The order passed by the Collector refusing temporary release stands afÏrmed, as the same is based on 7 relevant considerations touching public interest and maintenance of law and order. Consequently, the application for temporary release of Prisoner No. 221/63, Maseeh Prakash Toppo, merits no interference. 11. 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