1 2025:CGHC:56532-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 591 of 2025 Ramsundar S/o Heeralal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Jharapara Basantpur Post Wardrafnagar P.S. Raghunath Nagar, District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate Balrampur, District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent of Police Balrampur, District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station Basanpur, District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.21 10:39:51 +0530 2 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the authorities to release the petitioner on parole, in accordance with law. ii. That any other relief/order which may deem fit 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 would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Ramanujganj, C.G. vide order dated 31.01.2024 under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal being CRA No.1048/2024 before this Court, which is still pending. He further submits that the petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Balrampur on 04.05.2025, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Balrampur vide memorandum dated 17.07.2025, but the same has been rejected by the office of respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 12.09.2025 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 3 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 12.09.2025 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) was duly considered but ultimately rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) vide order dated 12.09.2025. It is submitted that, based on the communication received from the Jail Superintendent and the adverse reports of the Station House Officer, Basantpur, as well as the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur who opined that the release of the prisoner on leave may lead to an untoward incident in the village, the authorities found it inappropriate to grant parole, despite the statements of the local Sarpanch, Ward Panch, and guarantors raising no objection to his temporary release. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 goes to show that the petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected solely on the basis of the adverse reports furnished 4 by the Station House Officer, Basantpur and the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, who expressed apprehension of a possible untoward incident upon the petitioner’s release, notwithstanding the fact that the Sarpanch, Ward Panch, and the guarantors raised no objection and had assured full responsibility for his temporary release. 7. Considering the report of the Jail Superintendent, along with the adverse and cautionary opinions furnished by the Station House Officer, Basantpur and the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, both of whom have categorically stated that the petitioner’s release on parole may lead to a law-and-order situation in the village, this Court is of the view that the authority has exercised its discretion on relevant material and in accordance with the prevailing guidelines. The apprehensions expressed by the police authorities cannot be lightly disregarded, particularly when the grant of parole is not a matter of right but is contingent upon satisfaction regarding maintenance of public order and safety. 8. In such circumstances, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 12.09.2025. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet