1 CGHC010278642026 2026:CGHC:31104-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 404 of 2026 Manish Nishad Son of Shri Krishna Kumar Nishad, aged about 26 years R/o Village Magarghata, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh (He Has Preferred Instant Writ Petition Through Legal Aid Committee) ... Petitioner 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 Durg , District -Durg (C.G.) 3 - The District Magistrate / Additional District Magistrate District - Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent of Police Bemetara District -Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer, Police Station Jarhagaon, District -Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 . 07 .202 6 1. Heard Ms. Laxmin Tondey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 following prayers: “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 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently in Central Jail Durg as prisoner No. 2509/139 and is serving sentence of imprisonment of conviction of offences under Section 302 of IPC as the sessions trial culminated in his conviction by its order dated 01.02.2025 in ST No. 34/2023. She further submitted that being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal being CRA No. 719 of 2025, which is pending for hearing on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail as well as for final hearing. She also submitted that submitted that the petitioner has completed more than three years of incarceration and has thus become fully eligible for consideration of leave under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989. The Petitioner submitted a duly constituted application for grant of leave, which was forwarded through the Jail Superintendent to the competent authority. However, the Respondent No. 3 rejected the Petitioner's application solely on the basis of an unsubstantiated and mechanical opinion of the 3 Superintendent of Police, without independently applying his mind as mandated under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1989. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed, and the respondents ought to be directed to reconsider the Petitioner's case for grant of leave strictly in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989, and the settled principles of law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences under Section 302 and his application for suspension of sentence is pending. The application for temporary release was considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bemetara, on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, who specifically recorded the objection of the victim’s family that if the petitioner is released even temporarily, there is a grave apprehension of danger to their lives. It is further pointed out that this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has already expressed its concern that several prisoners released on parole or short-term bail have absconded and have not returned to custody, thereby creating serious law and order issues. In light of such observations and considering the apprehension expressed by the victim’s family, the competent authority rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for parole, and no interference is warranted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.11.2025. The rejection of the petitioner’s application for temporary 4 release is based not only on the nature and gravity of the offences for which he stands convicted, but also on the valid apprehension expressed by the victim’s family regarding threat to their lives. Furthermore, this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 has already observed the tendency of prisoners misusing the concession of parole and absconding, which has a direct bearing on public order and safety. In view of these circumstances, the authority was justified in exercising caution and rejecting the petitioner’s request. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his criminal appeal, being CRA No. 719/2025, for expediting the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail as he is in jail since last three years. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra