Wpcr 328 of 2026 1 2026:CGHC:26818-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 328 of 2026 Lakhan Kenwat @ Nannu S/o Late Budhram Kenwat Aged About 22 Years R/o Village And Post Pasid, Police Station Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Through His Brother Bahadur Kenwat S/o Late Budhram Kenwat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village And Post Pasid, Police Station Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) 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 District Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Rahul Goswami, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.07.2026 Heard Shri Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Soumya Rai, learned Dy GA, appearing for the respondent/State. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.02 12:05:13 +0530 Wpcr 328 of 2026 2 1. Petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs: “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 02.03.2026 (Annexure P1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 That the petitioner be kindly granted leave to visit his family. 10.4 To grant any others relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a convicted prisoner, presently confined in Central Jail, Bilaspur, undergoing sentence pursuant to the judgment dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Court (Atrocities)/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of ₹2,000/-, with the usual default stipulation. It is submitted that against the said judgment of conviction dated 11.06.2024, petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No.1279 of 2024 before this Court, wherein the conviction under Section 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside, while the conviction and sentence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody since 12.09.2021 and has completed more than four years and nine months of imprisonment, thereby fulfilling the eligibility conditions Wpcr 328 of 2026 3 prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 for grant of leave/parole. Learned counsel would submit that during the period of incarceration, petitioner has maintained good conduct and no jail offence has ever been reported against him. It is contended that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of leave before the competent authority, however, respondent No. 3, relying solely upon the opinion furnished by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, rejected the same vide order dated 02.03.2026, as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1989. It is further submitted that Rule 4 of the Rules, 1989 prescribes the eligibility criteria, all of which stand satisfied by the petitioner, and denial of leave merely on the basis of an unsubstantiated police report is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish two solvent sureties of ₹2,00,000/- each and undertakes to comply with every condition that may be imposed by the competent authority. 5. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (W.P. (Cr.) No.58 of 2020 decided on 05.08.2020) as well as the order passed by this Court in Sohit Kumar Kenwat v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPCR No.71 of 2026 decided on 03.02.2026) to contend that parole cannot be denied solely on account of the gravity of the offence and that the competent authority Wpcr 328 of 2026 4 is required to consider the statutory parameters prescribed under the Rules. Learned counsel prays that this Hon’ble Court may allow the petitioner’s parole application in the interest of justice. 6. 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 application preferred by the petitioner for grant of leave/parole was duly considered by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989. It is submitted that before passing the impugned order dated 02.03.2026, reports were obtained from the District Magistrate as well as the Superintendent of Police and, upon considering the said reports, respondent No.3 found that release of the petitioner was not advisable in the interest of public safety and maintenance of law and order. It is further submitted that the competent authority has exercised its statutory discretion under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1989 and no case of arbitrariness, mala fides or non-application of mind is made out warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the documents annexed with the writ petition. 8. From perusal of the impugned order dated 02.03.2026, it transpires that before considering petitioner's application for grant of leave/parole, the competent authority had called for reports from the Senior Wpcr 328 of 2026 5 Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and the Station House Officer, Police Station Bilha. The reports indicate that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is every likelihood of breach of peace, fresh dispute and abscondance. 9. It also appears from the record that the victim has specifically objected to the petitioner's release stating that there is an apprehension that the petitioner may threaten or cause harm to her and her family members. Though the Gram Sarpanch has expressed no objection to the petitioner's temporary release, the competent authority, upon considering the police reports as well as the objection of the victim, recorded its satisfaction that release of the petitioner would not be in the interest of public peace and public safety and accordingly rejected the application for leave. 10. Apart from the consideration of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and the Station House Officer, Police Station Bilha, we noticed the issue involved in WPPIL No. 33/2025 (In the matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), which is pending before this Court. In the said WPPIL No. 33/2025, on being direction made by this Court, the Director General of Police, PHQ, Chhattisgarh, filed his affidavit informing the fact about number of absconding accused persons who have been released on bail. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant part of the affidavit of the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which has been observed in the Wpcr 328 of 2026 6 order dated 08.12.2025 in the WPPIL No. 33/2025, which reads as under:- “4. That, the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits that in order to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Court, the deponent has immediately acted upon the letter of the office of the Advocate General dated 17/10/2025 and in continuation of the same, on 22/10/2025 necessary instructions and directions have immediately been issued to all the Range Inspector General of Polices including the Rail to ensure arrest and entry of 40 prisoners who are still absconding, into the jail by carrying out a special drive in this regard and submit a report about the efforts made for arrest of the accused persons by the concerned Police by 02/12/2025 by enclosing the list of 40 absconding prisoners, who were released on parole, but, have not surrendered and are still absconding so that the order of the Hon'ble Court can be complied with by submitting the information in this regard. To demonstrate this fact, copy of the letter dated 22/10/2025 is filed herewith as Annexure A/3. 5. on That, the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits that taking cognizance of poor performance / efforts / progress in arresting the absconding prisoners, 29/10/2025 a DO letter dated 29/10/2025 has personally been written to all the Range Inspector General of Polices, Chhattisgarh to carry out a special drive for arresting the remaining absconded accused and further ensure their entry into the jail after their arrest by preparing a working plan in this regard under the supervision of concerned District Superintendent of Polices. To demonstrate this fact, copies of the DO letters dated 29/10/2025 are filed herewith as Annexure A/4 colly. 6. That, the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits that as per the information received from 5 Circle Jails of the State, as on Wpcr 328 of 2026 7 02/12/2025, 2 absconded prisoners of Circle Jail Ambikapur and Circle Jail Jagdalpur have been arrested out of total40 prisoners and remaining is 38 in number. To demonstrate this fact, copy of the chart showing arrest of 2 absconded prisoners out of 40 prisoners is being filed herewith as Annexure A/5. 7. That, the deponent respectfully submits that the Police Personnel have made their all sincere and best efforts to arrest the aforesaid 40 absconded prisoners / accused and as a result of which the Police has succeeded in arresting 2 absconded prisoners. It is respectfully submitted that to arrest the remaining 38 absconding prisoners, the continuous efforts are being made by the concerned Police Officials and as soon as the said accused persons are arrested, they would be produced before the concerned learned Trial Court from where they will be sent to the Jail. That, the deponent most respectfully submits that he has the highest regard and respect for the lawful authority of this Hon'ble Court as well as its orders and directions issued from time to time and is duty bound to adhere to and abide by the orders.” 11. This Court also noticed the increasing number of absconding accused persons who have been either released on parole or bail that once they have been released on bail/parol, they are not surrendering after completion of their period of parole. 12. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid consideration, we are not inclined to release the petitioner on parole. Wpcr 328 of 2026 8 13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2017) 15 SCC 55, wherein the distinction between parole and furlough and the scope of judicial review in such matters has been explained. Paragraphs 19 and 21 of the judgment read as under: “19. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interest has also to be kept in mind while deciding as to whether in a particular case parole or furlough is to be granted or not. This public interest also demands that those who are habitual offenders and may have the tendency to commit the crime again after their release on parole or have the tendency to become a threat to the law and order of the society, should not be released on parole. This aspect takes care of other objectives of sentencing, namely, deterrence and prevention. This side of the coin is the experience that great number of crimes are committed by the offenders who have been put back in the street after conviction. Therefore, while deciding as to whether a particular prisoner deserves to be released on parole or not, the aforesaid aspects have also to be kept in mind. To put it tersely, the authorities are supposed to address the question as to whether the convict is such a person who has the tendency to commit such a crime or he is showing tendency to reform himself to become a good citizen. 21. To sum up, in introducing penal reforms, the State that runs the administration on behalf of the society and for the benefit of the society at large cannot be unmindful of safeguarding the legitimate rights of the citizens in regard to their security in the matters of life and liberty. it is for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the authorities cannot be Wpcr 328 of 2026 9 oblivious of the obligation to the society to render it immune from those who are prone to criminal tendencies and have proved their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty (by a court) of having perpetrated a criminal act. One of the discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of having perpetrated a criminal act. One of the discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of imprisonment is to render the society immune from the criminal for a specified period. It is, therefore, understandable that while meting out humane treatment to the convicts, care has to be taken to ensure that kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to the society. Naturally enough, the authorities would be anxious to ensure that the convict who is released on furlough does not seize the opportunity to commit another crime when he is at large for the time being under the furlough leave granted to him by way of a measure of penal reform.” 14. Likewise, in the matter of State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while considering an application for parole, the competent authority is entitled to rely upon the reports of the District Administration and Police Authorities for assessing the likelihood of breach of peace or threat to public order. The Court further held that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ought not to substitute its own opinion for the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or based on no material. Wpcr 328 of 2026 10 15. In the case at hand, although the petitioner has contended that he satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1989, mere fulfillment of the eligibility criteria does not confer an indefeasible right to be released on parole. The competent authority is also required to satisfy itself that the release of the prisoner would not be detrimental to public safety or public order. From the material placed on record, it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed without consideration of the relevant material or that it suffers from perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 16. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the impugned order in the present case is based upon the reports received from the competent authorities and cannot be said to have been passed solely on account of the gravity of the offence. 17. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to grant of parole is limited. Unless the decision of the competent authority is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to the statutory provisions, this Court would not substitute its own satisfaction for that of the authority vested with the power to consider such request. In the present case, respondent No.3 has considered the relevant material placed before it and has recorded reasons for declining temporary release of the petitioner in the interest of public safety and maintenance of law and order. We do not find any perversity, illegality or Wpcr 328 of 2026 11 non-application of mind in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 18. Consequently, considering the nature of reports submitted by the police authorities, the objection raised by the victim, and the satisfaction recorded by respondent No.3 under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989, we are of the considered opinion that no case for interference with the impugned order dated 02.03.2026 is made out. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma