1 CGHC010269532026 2026:CGHC:32165-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 419 of 2026 Vidyachand @ Bodu S/o Vedprakash Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Ghuru Mendra Road P.S Sakri Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary Home Department (Jail) Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur Distt Raipur (C.G.) 2. Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur Distt Bilaspur C.G. 3. The Collector And Distt Magistrate Bilaspur Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur Distt Bilaspur C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : 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 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.28 18:24:28 +0530 2 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 records of the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pass the order in favour of petitioner and quash the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 Annexure P/1. And directed to District Magistrate issue necessary release order granting leave/payroll to the petitioner for the period applied for within a period of 15 days. 10.3 The this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with a default stipulation of one month's additional rigorous imprisonment, by judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 6167/2023. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody since the date of the incident and has completed more than three years of incarceration. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2024, the petitioner has preferred CRA No. 196 of 2025 before this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the said criminal appeal is pending consideration and the petitioner's application seeking suspension of sentence is also pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner preferred an application seeking ordinary leave under Rules 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘Rules of 1989’). Upon receipt of the said application, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, who, in turn, sought a report from the Station House Officer concerned. The Station House Officer submitted an adverse report, solely on the basis of which the District Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application by order dated 17.10.2025, observing that the petitioner's first application for ordinary temporary release could not be allowed in view of public peace and security. He further submitted that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 1989, framed under Section 31-E of the Prisoners Act, 1900. It is contended that the District Magistrate mechanically relied upon the adverse police report without independently examining whether the petitioner fulfilled the statutory requirements prescribed under the Rules of 1989. 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the office of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate addressed a communication to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, in connection with the petitioner's application for temporary release. It is submitted that the jail authorities also forwarded their report along with the relevant correspondence received from the Senior Superintendent of Police and the concerned Police Station during the enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate. He also contended that the petitioner has maintained exemplary conduct throughout his incarceration. According to the reports of the jail authorities, the petitioner is a disciplined prisoner, has exhibited good behaviour in jail, and has not committed any prison offence during his custody. The petitioner has continuously remained in custody since his arrest and has completed almost three years of imprisonment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 prescribes the conditions governing the grant of leave, including that the prisoner should not have committed any prison offence after making the application for leave, should disclose the place intended to be visited during the period of leave, undertake not to visit any other place without prior permission, furnish security if so required by the releasing authority, and that the competent authority must be satisfied that the grant of leave would not be detrimental to public interest. He further submitted that Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989 contemplates that, upon making such enquiry as may be considered necessary, if the District Magistrate is satisfied that the prisoner's request for leave can be granted without detriment to public interest, the District Magistrate is 5 required to issue a duly signed and sealed warrant in the prescribed form to the Superintendent for releasing the prisoner on leave. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner satisfies all the statutory requirements prescribed under the Rules of 1989. Despite the petitioner's satisfactory conduct in jail and eligibility under the Rules, his application has been rejected solely on the basis of an adverse police report without any independent application of mind by the District Magistrate. Such rejection defeats the very object of the statutory scheme governing temporary release of prisoners and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life. It is submitted that the petitioner's application for temporary release was considered by the competent authority after obtaining the report of the Superintendent of Police, which was based upon the report submitted by the Station House Officer concerned. On the basis of the said report, the District Magistrate recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner's temporary release would not be conducive to public peace and security and, accordingly, rejected the application. He further submits that this Court, in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In Re: Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), has taken note of instances where prisoners released on parole or temporary leave have 6 absconded and failed to surrender before the concerned authorities, thereby giving rise to serious law and order issues. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The petitioner seeks temporary release under the provisions of the Rules of 1989. The record reveals that the competent authority called for reports from the police authorities before taking a decision on the petitioner's application. Upon consideration of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, based on the report of the Station House Officer, the District Magistrate arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's temporary release would not be in the interest of public peace and security and consequently rejected the application. 12. It is true that, despite issuance of notices, no representative of the victim's family appeared before the competent authority to submit any objection. Nevertheless, the competent authority was entitled to independently consider the police report and other relevant materials while exercising its powers under the Rules of 1989. The decision cannot be said to be vitiated merely because the victim's family did not participate in the proceedings. 13. This Court also cannot lose sight of the observations made in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In Re: Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), wherein concern has been 7 expressed regarding the increasing instances of prisoners released on parole or temporary leave absconding and failing to surrender within the stipulated period, thereby creating serious law and order concerns. Though the observations made therein cannot, by themselves, constitute the sole basis for rejection of every application for temporary release, they are certainly relevant factors to be kept in view while examining the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority. 14. Having considered the material available on record, this Court does not find any patent illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the present writ petition shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in CRA No.196 of 2025 pending before this Court. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for urgent hearing of CRA No. 196 of 2025, as well as the pending application for suspension of sentence therein, if so advised Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan