1 CGHC010269282026 2026:CGHC:31386-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 400 of 2026 Raja Sahu S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 24 Years Prisoner No. 2485/139, R/o Village Ghodkhamhi, P.S.- Lormi, District- Mungeli, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector / District Magistrate Mungeli, District- Mungeli, C.G. 3 - Superintendent Of Police Mungeli, District- Mungeli, C.G. 4 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Leekesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Leekesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.24 10:30:10 +0530 2 appearing for the respondents/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 quash the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 2. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on parole as early as possible for a period as prescribed under Chhattisgarh Prisoner Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case” 3. The petitioner is a convict prisoner presently lodged in the Central Jail, Bilaspur, pursuant to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 02/2024. He stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with fine, for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 201 IPC, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2025 before this Hon’ble Court challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 15.05.2026, affirming the conviction and sentence. Thereafter, the 3 petitioner submitted an application under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 seeking grant of leave for a period of 14+2 days. Upon receipt of the application, the District Magistrate called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. The Superintendent of Police, on the basis of the report submitted by the Station House Officer concerned and the objections raised by the family members of the deceased, did not recommend the release of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the said report, the District Magistrate, by order dated 06.02.2026, rejected the petitioner's application for grant of leave. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. It is contended that the petitioner fulfills all the eligibility conditions prescribed under the Rules and, therefore, is entitled to be released on leave. It is further submitted that the District Magistrate has mechanically rejected the application solely on the basis of the adverse recommendation of the Superintendent of Police and the objection raised by the family members of the deceased without independently considering the relevant factors required under the Rules. It is argued that the statements of the sureties and the Gram Panchayat, which did not oppose the petitioner's release, have not been taken into consideration. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the object of the Prisoners Leave Rules is to enable a prisoner to maintain social and family ties 4 and that mere objection by the victim's family cannot be the sole basis for rejection of parole. Reliance has also been placed upon the decisions rendered by this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 29 of 2016 and W.P. (Cr.) No. 182 of 2015 (Santhram Sinha), wherein it has been observed that the opinion of the police is only one of the relevant considerations and is not conclusive. It is also submitted that the petitioner's mother is suffering from serious cardiac ailments and requires medical treatment and surgery. Further, the petitioner himself has been diagnosed with HIV while undergoing incarceration and requires proper medical care. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner be released on parole. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and supports the impugned order. It is submitted that before considering the petitioner's application, the District Magistrate obtained the report of the Superintendent of Police in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. It is contended that the Superintendent of Police, after considering the report of the Station House Officer concerned and the prevailing local circumstances, did not recommend the release of the petitioner. The report also indicates that the family members of the deceased have strongly opposed the petitioner's temporary release and have expressed apprehension that his release may adversely affect the maintenance of peace and public order in the locality. 8. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the grave offence of murder and his conviction has already 5 been affirmed by this Court in appeal. It is further submitted that grant of parole is not a matter of right and the competent authority is required to consider the overall facts and circumstances, including the likelihood of disturbance to public peace and security. The competent authority, after due consideration of the relevant materials, has exercised its discretion in rejecting the petitioner's application and no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The petitioner seeks interference with the order dated 06.02.2026 whereby his application for grant of leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 has been rejected by the District Magistrate. 11. It is well settled that grant of parole or temporary leave is not an absolute or vested right of a convict. The competent authority is required to consider all relevant circumstances, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct of the prisoner, the report of the police authorities, the likelihood of disturbance to public peace and tranquillity, and other relevant considerations before taking a decision. 12. In the present case, the District Magistrate has considered the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, who, in turn, relied upon the report of the Station House Officer and the objections raised by the family members of the deceased. The competent authority has found that the petitioner's release is not advisable in the prevailing 6 circumstances. This Court does not sit as an appellate authority over such administrative satisfaction unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or based on no material whatsoever. 13. The medical condition of the petitioner's mother and the petitioner's own medical condition, though pleaded, do not by themselves create an indefeasible right to be released on parole, particularly when the competent authority has recorded reasons based upon relevant materials for declining such relief. The petitioner has also not demonstrated that adequate medical treatment is unavailable to him within the prison system or that the impugned order suffers from perversity or non-application of mind warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 14. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, finding no ground for grant of parole or for interference with the impugned order dated 06.02.2026, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu