1 2026:CGHC:1890-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(Cr.) No.19 of 2026 Amrit Lal Madhukar S/o Sudheram Madhukar Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Chote Rabeli, Police Station Malkharauda District Sakti Chhattisgarh Through His Brother In Law Dinesh Kumar S/o Narad Ram Kurre, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Ameradih, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 -The District Magistrate Sakti, Sakti Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.01.14 11:18:26 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. NK Jaiswal, Dy. Government Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. NK Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondents/State. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “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 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules 1989.. 10.3. To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the District Magistrate, District Sakti, (C.G.) vide order dated 3 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the Petitioner’s release is likely to lead quarrel and dispute by him on the ground that the victim’s family had expressed their apprehension that the Petitioner could cause harm to life and property. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149, 148/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), vide judgment dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Sakti, (C.G.) and is languishing in jail since 14.12.2021. He further submits that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected by the office 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 09.06.2025 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. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the material available on record. 4 7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Sakti was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police that if the Petitioner is released on parole, there is 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 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. The relevant part of the paragraph is as under:- “... 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 if released from prison…” 9. In the present case also, merely on the basis of the vague report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, without considering the 5 relevant rules, the District Magistrate has rejected the application of the Petitioner. 10. In view of the above and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Sakti is hereby set aside and the Petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 11. Accordingly, 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 Rs.1 lac each of two family members 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 on each day during that period. 12. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Priya