1 2026:CGHC:14200-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 164 of 2026 1 - Devendra Sidar S/o Nawdha Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Parsabhatha, Post Balco Police Station Balconagar, District Korba Chhattisgarh Through His Brother Narendra Sidar, S/o Nawdha Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Parsabhatha, Post Balco Police Station Balconagar District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The District Magistrate District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent of Police District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S. Baghel, 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 25.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.01 12:37:05 +0530 2 well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioners leave case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court. 10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 That The petitioner wishes to obtain 14 days leave to visit his family. who also misses him greatly. 10.4 To grant any others relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently in Central Jail Bilaspur as prisoner No.2058/136. He is in jail since 19.04.2023 serving sentence of imprisonment under Section 294, 458, 302, 201 of the IPC as the sessions trial culminated in his conviction. The petitioner has served more than 02 years, 10 months and 26 days imprisonment as on 17.03.2026 becomes eligible for the benefit of release on leave under the C.G. Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 (in short ‘the Rules, 1989’). He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.3 summarily without following the 3 relevant provisions of the Rules, 1989 as well as Rules 6, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 21.01.2026 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 has submitted that the petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 21.01.2026 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police based on the memo/reports of concerned authorities. 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 relying upon the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Korba expressed on the basis of the memo/reports sent by concerned police station in- charge and authority concerned where objection has been raised that releasing the petitioner on parole/leave would not be appropriate looking to the sureties being resident of other District and the criminal antecedents of the appellant, the respondent No.3, the District Magistrate, Korba agreeing with the opinion has rejected the leave application of the petitioner. 7. 7. Considering the nature of offence for which the petitioner has been been convicted and is undergoing jail sentence and his criminal antecedents, further considering that the District 4 Magistrate, District Korba has rejected the application of the petitioner for leave (parole) on the recommendation made by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the basis of the reports of the authorities concerned, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 21.01.2026 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