1 CGHC010263092026 2026:CGHC:29890-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 394 of 2026 Ishwari Bai W/o Shri Durga Prasad Rathore Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Post- Gataura, Police Station- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)(Convicted Prisoner No. 678/03) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - District Magistrate Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.15 18:00:13 +0530 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 To call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 Quash the impugned order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.3 and order may kindly be passed for temporary release/parole of the petitioner for 14+2 days. 10.3 To grant other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The petitioner's application for the grant of leave (parole) was rejected by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur, vide order dated 20.04.2026, based on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police, on the ground that the petitioner's release was likely to result in her absconding and pose a threat to public safety or cause a breach of peace. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), vide judgment dated 22.09.2022 and has served more than 3 years and 9 months in Central Jail, Bilaspur. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the office of respondent No. 3 summarily without following 3 the relevant provisions of Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in brevity 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, therefore, the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 20.04.2026 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, was swayed by the opinion of the concerned Superintendent of Police that, if the petitioner was released on parole, there was a likelihood of her absconding and posing a threat to public safety or causing a breach of peace. Accordingly, he rejected the petitioner's application. 8. Recently, in the matter of Shor v. State of UP decided on 05/08/2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted the benefit of parole to those whose application was rejected on the ground that the crime is heinous and release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society. “... Merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous 4 and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2 of the United Provinces Prisoners Release on Prohibition Act, 1938. Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner is not “incapacitated” from committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life is released from prison…” 9. In the present case also merely on the basis of the vague report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, without considering the relevant rules, the District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. In view of the above matter and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Shor (supra), the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) is directed to verify the surety submitted by the petitioner and issue necessary release order granting leave/parole to the petitioner for 14 days and the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authority on completion of 14 days, at 11.00 a.m. positively. The District Magistrate, while allowing the 5 application for grant of parole to the petitioner, may also seek surety of one family member of the petitioner as provided in Section 4(e) of the Rules, 1989 and may direct the petitioner to mark his presence before the District Magistrate, Sakti (C.G.) on each day during that period. 11. In the result, the present petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu