1 2025:CGHC:6236-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 73 of 2025 Chandeshwar Yadav S/o Rambharosa Yadav, aged about 29 years Convict No. 7908/37, Lodged in Raipur Central Jail, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) 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 Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Thana In-Charge Police Station - Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers : ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.02.04 18:27:10 +0530 2 “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside the order dated 27.11.24 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Dhamtari. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to decide the Petitioner’s Application for Leave in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989; (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 has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Dhamtari vide order dated 22.08.2023 under Section 4(2) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of 20 years. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal being CRA No. 1746/2023 before this Court, in which application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2023 and the appeal is pending for being heard finally. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of temporary release to the Jail Superintendent, Raipur on 13.09.2024, which was endorsed by Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Dhamtari vide memorandum dated 19.09.2024, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 27.11.2024 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 3 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 27.11.2024 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 submitted that the petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Dhamtari (C.G.) vide order dated 27.11.2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that since at the time of incident the petitioner had threatened to kill the victim and her family members, victim’s family had expressed their apprehension that the petitioner could cause harm to their life on being releasing on leave. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that Police station in- charge Arjuni, District Dhamtari has expressed in his opinion that there is a possibility of some untoward incident happening due to prisoner Chandreshwar Yadav coming on ordinary leave as the prisoner had earlier threatened to kill the victim and her family members. It further goes to show that the Superintendent of Police, District Dhamtari, agreeing with the opinion of the Police Station In-charge Arjuni, District Dhamtari and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, District Dhamtari, has 4 shown his disagreement on releasing the petitioner. Therefore, Collector-cum-District Magistrate, agreeing with the report received, in public interest, has rejected the leave application of petitioner. 7. Considering the conduct of the petitioner that at the time of incident, he had threatened the victim and her family members to kill them and further considering the apprehension of the victim as well as victim’s family that the petitioner could cause harm to their life on being releasing on leave, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 27.11.2024 passed by Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Dhamtari rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra