1 2025:CGHC:8878-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 96 of 2025 1 - Obhan Sahu S/o Lt. Dayaram Sahu, Aged About 68 Years R/o Bajrang Para, Utai Tehsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Magistrate, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent of Police, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Station House Officer P.S. Patan/ A J K Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20-02-2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “A. Call for the entire records of the case pertaining to the Petitioner B. Issue a writ/order/direction of appropriate nature for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.12.2024 issued by the Respondent No.3(ANNEXURE P/1) C. Issue a writ/order/direction of appropriate nature directing the Respondent Authorities to release the Petitioner on Parole for the tiem as may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court in accordance with the applicable rules. D. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Durg, District Durg, C.G. in Special Case No.07/2020 vide judgment dated 21-07-2023 under Section 302, 342, 376(2)(n), 404 and 201 of the IPC and he has been sentenced with life imprisonment, R.I. for 1 year, life imprisonment, R.I. for three years and R.I. for five years respectively alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- for each offence and its default stipulation. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 21-07-2023 the appellant has preferred CRA No.2304/2023 which is pending before this Court. It has been further submitted that co- accused of the case, namely, Umesh Sahu has been released on 3 bail vide order dated 25-01-2024 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in CRA No.1634/2023. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in short ‘the Rule, 1989’) as well as Rules 6, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 24-12-2024 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 24-12-2024 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner has been convicted for heinous offence and the family of victim has objection on his release on parole. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents annexed. 6. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Superintendent of Police, District Durg has expressed opinion that the petitioner is a convict of heinous offence and there is objection from the family of victim and shown his disagreement on releasing the petitioner on parole/leave. Therefore, the respondent No.3, the District Magistrate, Durg agreeing with the report has rejected the 4 leave application of the petitioner. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a convict of heinous offence and the family members of the deceased/victim are having objection on his release on parole/leave, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 24-12-2024 passed by respondent No.3 rejecting the application of the petitioner 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 Aadil