1 2026:CGHC:9007-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 106 of 2026 Jai Prakash @ Bau S/o Veer Singh Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Ex-Parshad, Near Narsingh Nishad House, Ravabhatha, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Jail Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : None For State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge (Order on Board) Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 20/02/2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA 2 1. Heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned GA for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the respondent authority to consider the application and release the petitioner on perol for 14 days. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 3. None appears on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition, however, Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate has appeared in CRA No.1119 of 2024 which was listed today and the same has been finally decided today itself. 4. From perusal of the pleadings in the petition it transpires that the petitioner has been in jail during entire trial and after the conviction affirmed by the trial Court he has not filed any parole application. It further transpires that the petitioner’s father had filed the application for parole before the District Magistrate and the same has been rejected on 04/07/2025. It further transpires that prior to the judgment dated 10/04/2024, the petitioner has not committed any offence which is grievous in nature and even the social report is not submitted before passing the order impugned 3 order dated 04/07/2025, therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 04/07/2025 may be set aside and the petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submitted that the petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) vide order dated 04/07/2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police holding that both the sureties of the petitioner reside in other police station jurisdictions making it impossible to control the prisoner, and the possibility of his escape cannot be ruled out. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that Superintendent of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) has expressed in his opinion that both the sureties of the petitioner reside in other police station jurisdictions making it impossible to control the prisoner, and the possibility of his escape cannot be ruled out. Therefore, Collector-cum-District Magistrate, agreeing with the report received, in public interest, has rejected the leave application of petitioner. 8. The apprehension which has been raised by the authority concerned that if the parole application is allowed there is every likelihood that the petitioner would not surrender. This Court has 4 also noticed the fact that the prisoners are not surrendering after they are being released on parole. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 04/07/2025 passed by Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) rejecting the application for grant of leave (parole). 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Ashu