CGHC010260172026 2026:CGHC:28376-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 373 of 2026 Manish Kaushik S/o Ashok Kumar Kaushik Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, P.S. Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh Through His Brother Bikesh Kumar Kaushik, Son Of Ashok Kumar Kaushik Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, P.S. Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its, Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - The District Magistrate District Korba C.G. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police District Korba C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri SRJ Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Priyank Rathi, GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09.07.2026 Heard Shri SRJ Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Priyank Rathi, GA for the State. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs: Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.14 12:32:23 +0530 Wpcr 373 of 2026 2 “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioner’s leave case for kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court. 10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 20.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Rules 1989.” 2. Petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) and was sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Korba, CG in Special Criminal Case-04 of 2022. Petitioner constituted a Criminal Appeal-1824 of 2025 before this Court in which by judgment dated 30.10.2025, the appeal was partly allowed and his sentence has been reduced to 01 year instead of 04 years. Presently, petitioner is in Central Jail, Bilaspur, serving sentence of imprisonment since the date of judgment i.e.30.10.2025, prior to this, he remained in jail during trial for about three months. During his incarceration period, petitioner’s father preferred an application on 05.07.2026 for grant of leave to the petitioner, as petitioner’s sister is going to be married on 11.07.2026. The said application has been rejected by the jail authorities assigning the reason that present petitioner has not completed minimum two years in jail. Wpcr 373 of 2026 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has completed the minimum period of imprisonment prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989 and is fully eligible for grant of leave. He suffers from no statutory disqualification; however, despite fulfilling all eligibility criteria, he has been arbitrarily denied the benefit of parole. It is further submitted that the petitioner's sister, Sanavi (Manisha), is getting married on 11.07.2026 and petitioner's presence is essential for performing customary and family obligations, particularly as there is no other family member available to take care of the marriage arrangements. Relevant documents, including the marriage invitation card, have been filed on record as Annexure P-4. The petitioner contends that under Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989, leave can be denied only where the prisoner's release is likely to endanger public safety. In the present case, there is no material to substantiate such an apprehension. Respondent No. 2 failed to act upon independently, thereby acting contrary to the statutory mandate. It is also submitted that the Rules do not require the consent or no-objection of the complainant's side for grant of parole. Accordingly, the impugned memorandum dated 20.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the petitioner's rights. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned order be quashed and the respondents be directed to release him on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner's request for parole was duly considered and rejected in accordance with Wpcr 373 of 2026 4 the applicable rules. It is further stated that although the marriage of the petitioner's sister was scheduled to be held on 10.07.2026 & 11.07.2026, and the petitioner sought parole for one month from 01.07.2026 to 31.07.2026 to attend the ceremony, he is not eligible for such relief. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not completed the mandatory qualifying period of two years of imprisonment required for grant of parole. Since the petitioner had not fulfilled the prescribed eligibility condition, the competent authority rightly rejected his application. Therefore, according to the State, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner's contention is that he is entitled to be released on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989, as he has completed the requisite period of imprisonment and that the rejection of his application solely on the basis of the opinion of the Superintendent of Police is arbitrary and contrary to Rule 6 of the said Rules. It has also been urged that the petitioner is required to attend the marriage of his sister and that the Rules do not require the consent of the complainant's side for grant of parole. On the other hand, the State has specifically contended that the petitioner's application was rejected not on account of any adverse police report, but because he had not fulfilled the minimum eligibility requirement prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Wpcr 373 of 2026 5 Rules, 1989. The record reveals that the competent authority found the petitioner ineligible for grant of parole as he had not completed the mandatory qualifying period of two years of imprisonment, which is a condition precedent for consideration of parole. 7. The object of parole is to enable eligible prisoners to maintain family and social ties while ensuring that the statutory conditions governing such release are strictly complied with. However, the grant of parole is not an absolute or vested right. It is a statutory benefit which can be extended only upon fulfillment of the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable Rules. Where the Rules prescribe a minimum period of incarceration before a prisoner becomes eligible for parole, the competent authority cannot ignore or relax such requirement in the absence of any enabling provision. 8. Section 31-A of the Prisoners (CG Amendment) Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Prisoners’ Act’) provides the provisions of leave and emergency leave to the Prisoners and Section 31-A (4) (a) of the Prisoners’ Act reads as under: “(a) he has at the time of the grant of leave served one-half of his sentence including remission, or a period of not less than two years of his sentence, including remission, whichever is less;” Wpcr 373 of 2026 6 9. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Under Section 31-A (4) (a) of the Prisoners’ Act, 1985, a prisoner becomes eligible for leave only upon completion of the prescribed qualifying period of imprisonment. The record reveals that, on the date when the petitioner's application was considered, he had not completed the mandatory qualifying period of two years' imprisonment. As the petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory eligibility requirement, the competent authority was justified in rejecting his application for parole. 10. It is well settled that this Court cannot direct the grant of parole in contravention of the mandatory statutory provisions or the Rules framed thereunder merely on sympathetic or humanitarian considerations, including the proposed marriage of the petitioner's sister. Accordingly, the impugned order warrants no interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, and the present petition is, therefore, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma