1 2026:CGHC:24273-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 304 of 2026 Suresh Kumar S/o Nathuram Mehar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Kharghna, Laripara, Post Lamer, P.S. Kota, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector/ District Magistrate Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer, Police Station- Kota, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.06.2026 1. Heard Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.06.18 10:43:23 +0530 2 General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to set aside of the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 ANNEXURE P/1 passed by the respondent no. 2 / learned Collector Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G) 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to release the petitioner on parole for the period prescribed under the Rules. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 302, 397, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to judgment dated 02.02.2023 arising out of a crime registered at Police Station Kota and has been continuously incarcerated since 20.09.2019. He further submits that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of parole before the competent authority through the Jail Superintendent along with the requisite affidavit and details of the proposed guarantor. Thereafter, the matter was referred for police verification and a report was obtained from the Superintendent of Police. However, respondent No.2/Collector, Bilaspur, vide impugned order dated 23.03.2026, rejected the petitioner’s 3 application for parole on the ground that the petitioner’s family members, who were proposed as guarantors, did not support the request for parole. He would further submit that the impugned order has been passed in complete disregard of the provisions contained in Rules 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989, which contemplate consideration of the statutory requirements governing release on parole and not merely the willingness of family members to stand as guarantors. It is contended that the competent authority has mechanically relied upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police without independently applying its mind to the relevant factors and has failed to consider that, even assuming the proposed guarantors were unwilling, the petitioner could have been afforded an opportunity to furnish alternative sureties or seek release on an appropriate bond. He further submits that the petitioner has remained in continuous custody since 20.09.2019 and has maintained good conduct during incarceration, but the said aspect has not been considered by the authorities while deciding his application. Learned counsel would also submit that this Hon’ble Court, in a similar matter being W.P. (Cr.) No.256/2021, vide order dated 30.07.2021, has considered the scope of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 and the principles laid down therein are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 passed by respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves 4 to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the petition and submit that the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 has been passed by the respondent No.2 strictly in accordance with law after considering the report and recommendation received from the Superintendent of Police as well as other relevant materials available on record. It is submitted that the competent authority, upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the petitioner’s family members, who were proposed as guarantors, had not supported the petitioner’s request for parole and, therefore, the authority was justified in declining the prayer for temporary release. Learned State counsel would further submit that grant of parole is not a matter of right and the competent authority is required to take into consideration all relevant factors, including the possibility of maintaining peace and public order as well as the likelihood of the prisoner complying with the conditions of release. It is contended that no procedural irregularity or illegality has been committed by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order and, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the material available on record with 5 utmost circumspection. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 23.03.2026, this Court finds that the competent authority has rejected the petitioner’s application for parole after taking into consideration the report of the Superintendent of Police as well as the fact that the petitioner’s family members, who were proposed as guarantors, had not supported his request for release on parole. The impugned order reflects due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances placed before the authority and cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Grant of parole is not a matter of right and the competent authority is vested with discretion to assess the suitability of the prisoner for temporary release in light of the material available on record. This Court is of the considered opinion that the authority has exercised its discretion in a reasonable manner and no ground for judicial interference is made out. 7. In such circumstances, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 23.03.2026. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet