1 2025:CGHC:59371-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 619 of 2025 Tuleshwar @ Dullu Chandra S/o Shri Rambhagat Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Kataud, Post- Kataud, Police Station- Dabhra, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahnadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter - Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector - Cum - District Magistrate Sakti (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Sakti (C.G.) 5 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Government Advocate. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.09 10:49:42 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Dy. wGovernment Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “10.1. The hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.3 and the application filed by the petitioner under C.G. Prisoners leave Rule 1989 may kindly be allowed; 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sakti (C.G.) vide order dated 16.07.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner’s release is likely to lead quarrel and dispute by the petitioner on the ground that the victim’s family had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause 3 harm to life and property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 450, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), vide judgment dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) and the petitioner is languishing in jail since 29.07.2019. He would also submit that the other co-accused namely; Naveen Sidar was granted parole by this Court vide order dated 03/03/2025 passed in WPCR No. 119/2025, whereas the present petitioner has not been given benefit of releasing on parole even once. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the ofÏce of respondent No. 3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 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 District Magistrate dated 16.07.2025 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 969 of 2023 and other connected matters filed on behalf of the present petitioner and other co-accused persons had already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 4 7. From perusal of the impugned order shows that the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Sakti (C.G.) was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is every likelihood that he would commit cognizable offence, hence he rejected the application of the petitioner. 8. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on 05/08/2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted the benefit of parole to those whose application was rejected on the ground that the crime is heinous and release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society. “... Merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2 of the United Provinces Prisoners Release on Prohibition Act, 1938. Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner is not “incapacitated” from committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life is released from prison…” 9. In the present case also merely on the basis of the report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, without considering the relevant rules, the District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. 5 10. Further it is also noteworthy that the other co-accused namely; Naveen Sidar was granted parole by this Court vide order dated 03/03/2025 passed in WPCR No. 119/2025, based upon the said order, the State Government has also granted parole to the other co-accused persons in the case, whereas the present petitioner has not been given benefit of releasing on parole even once. 11. In view of the above and keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sakti (C.G.) (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Sakti (C.G.) is directed to verify the surety submitted by the petitioner and issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days and the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on completion of 14 days, at 11.00 a.m. positively. The District Magistrate, while allowing the application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may also seek surety of one family member of the petitioner as provided in Section 4(e) of the Rules, 1989 and may direct the petitioner to mark his presence before the District Magistrate, Sakti (C.G.) on each day during that period. 13. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar