1 CGHC010277992026 2026:CGHC:32221-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 421 of 2026 Dhannulal Chaturvedi S/o Pardeshi Ram Chaturvedi, Aged About 52 Years Profession - Labour, R/o Village - Deendayal Colony, M.I.G. -193, P.S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address - Convicted Prisoner No. 809/130, Central Jail, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent Of Jail, Central Jail, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Line, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.29 10:16:54 +0530 2 Order On Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 for fresh consideration of application of petitioner for release on parole. ii. That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby his application for temporary release on parole has been rejected. 4. The petitioner was convicted by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Bilaspur, vide judgment dated 17.01.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366A and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of 20 years 3 along with fine and the default stipulation. After serving more than five years of imprisonment, the petitioner applied for release on parole. During the course of verification, the competent authority sought a report from the concerned Police Station regarding the sureties proposed by the petitioner. The Station House Officer reported on 31.07.2025 that despite issuance of notices, the proposed sureties did not appear before the Police Station for verification. The said report was forwarded through the superior authorities, and ultimately, on the basis of the verification report, respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioner's application for parole vide the impugned order dated 08.09.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already undergone more than five years of imprisonment and has never been released on parole. It is further submitted that the petitioner's conduct in jail has remained satisfactory and no adverse report has been recorded against him during incarceration. It is argued that the rejection of the petitioner's application solely on the ground that the proposed sureties did not appear before the Police Station is arbitrary and contrary to the object of the parole rules. 6. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner's application was rejected only after due verification in accordance with the applicable rules. It is contended 4 that despite issuance of notices, the proposed sureties failed to appear before the concerned Police Station for verification, and in the absence of duly verified sureties, the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory requirements for grant of parole. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner's application for parole has been rejected solely on the ground that the proposed sureties failed to appear before the concerned Police Station despite issuance of notices, as a result of which their verification could not be completed. The requirement of furnishing duly verified sureties is an essential condition for grant of parole, and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the said requirement. 8. In the absence of compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements, this Court does not find any arbitrariness, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing a fresh 5 application, if and when he is able to arrange the requisite sureties for his release on parole. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu