1 2026:CGHC:24848-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 316 of 2026 Ajay @ Golu Kashyap S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Kashyap Aged About 25 Years R/o Chilhati Housing Board Colony, Quarter No. EWS 112, Har Shringar Colony, Atal Awas Rajkishor Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent of Jail Central Jail, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Collector/ District Magistrate Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer P.S- Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 . 06 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 23.03.2026 (P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 and direct the respondent No.3 to release the petitioner on leave as applied by him for a period of 14 days. ii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under Section 376(3) and 376(2) (n) of IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and after completion of trial, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under aforementioned offences by judgment dated 24.08.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Sessions Trial (POCSO Act) No. 204/2021 and sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years and fine of 1,000/- for both the offences. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal bearing Cr.A. No. 1913 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court and the same is pending consideration and vide order dated 06.02.2024 this Hon'ble Court has rejected the application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail. He further submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 06.11.2021 and after rejection of this application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, the petitioner has applied for release on parole and vide letter dated 24.05.2024 before respondent No.2 which was forwarded to the respondent No.3 and the same has been rejected by respondent No.3 3 vide impugned order dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner is of serious nature and for want of local sureties summarily without following the mandate of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989. It is thus submitted that the order dated 23.03.2026 suffers from non-application of mind and violation of statutory provisions, and is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences under Section Section 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and his application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2024 in Cr.A. No.1913 of 2023. He further submitted that the application for parole was considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur, i.e. respondent No.3 and has rejected the same vide order dated 23.03.2026 on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner is of serious nature and for want of local sureties. It is further pointed out that this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has already expressed its concern that several prisoners released on parole or short-term bail have absconded and have not returned to custody, thereby creating serious law and order issues. In light of such observations and considering the apprehension expressed by the victim’s family, the competent authority rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for parole, and no interference is warranted. 4 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 23.03.2026. The rejection of the petitioner’s application for temporary release is based not only on the nature and gravity of the offences for which he stands convicted, but also for want of local sureties. Furthermore, this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 has already observed the tendency of prisoners misusing the concession of parole and absconding, which has a direct bearing on public order and safety. In view of these circumstances, the authority was justified in exercising caution and rejecting the petitioner’s request. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra