1 2026:CGHC:4037-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 42 of 2026 1 - Shravan Kumar Sonjhari S/o Shri Shivnarayan Sonjhari Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Madai, Post Khamharia Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Through His Wife Sonam Bai Sonjhari, W/o Shravan Kumar Sonjhari Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Madai, Post Khaharia Police Station Seepat, 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 Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Rahul Goswami, Advocate. For State : Shri Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 23.01.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking 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 01.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.24 12:28:43 +0530 2 10.3 To grant any others relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. An affidavit is filed herewith in support of this petition is being filled herewith. 2 The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, vide order dated 01.12.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that the petitioner's release is likely to cause public nuisance and breach of peace in the society and further potential untoward incident also cannot be ruled out if he is released. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a life convict by the First Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) Bilaspur for the offence under Sections 5(m)/6, 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. He has spent about 2 years and 2 months imprisonment and Criminal Appeal challenging his conviction is pending before this Hon’ble High Court. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Magistrate summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in short ‘the Rule, 1989’) as well as Rules 6, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6 Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Bilaspur was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police that if the petitioner is released on parole, 3 there is likelihood that he would cause public nuisance and breach of peace in the society and incident of potential untoward also cannot be ruled out, and rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of parole. Perusal of record would also show that apart from present offence, the petitioner has certain criminal antecedent for the offences under Section 376 (AB) IPC, & Section 4&6 of POCSO Act (in Criminal Case No.305/2022) Excise Act (in Criminal Case No.359/2020), Gambling Act (in Criminal Case No.541/2021) as also under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC in Criminal Case No.380/2021. Thus, considering all these facts the concerned Superintendent of Police has not recommended for parole to the petitioner which has been affirmed by the respondent No.3. Though parole is a mechanism for rehabilitation, it cannot be granted if it poses a genuine risk to public safety. Therefore, considering heinous offence committed by the petitioner as also his checkered history, we do not see any good reason to interfere with the order impugned rejecting parole application of the petitioner. 7 Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder