1 CGHC010286342026 2026:CGHC:31871-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 415 of 2026 Sukhsagar Nishad S/o Shri Laxminarayan Aged About 22 Years R/o Kharwanipara Baramkela, Post - Baramkela, Police Station - Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General, Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter - Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - The Additional District Magistrate Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - The Senior Superintendent Of Police Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.07.29 09:49:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 27.07 .2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no and the application (Annexure P/2) filed by the petitioner under C.G. Prisoners leave Rule 1989 may kindly be allowed; 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) and is undergoing sentence pursuant to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional 3 Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), District Raigarh in Session Criminal Case (POCSO) No.105/2024, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 5(l) punishable under Section 6 and 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody since 06.08.2023. Against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No.955 of 2025 before this Court, which has already been admitted vide order dated 27.06.2025 and is pending consideration. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having become eligible under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, submitted an application dated 01.12.2025 seeking temporary leave for a period of 14+2 days. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur recommended the petitioner's case on 03.12.2025 and forwarded the same to the competent authority. However, thereafter the Superintendent of Police, by communication dated 10.02.2026, did not recommend the petitioner's release on leave, and relying upon the said adverse recommendation, the District Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application by order dated 11.03.2026, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 suffers from complete non-application of mind and has been passed mechanically merely on the basis of 4 the adverse recommendation furnished by the police authorities. It is submitted that the competent authority has failed to independently consider the petitioner's conduct in jail, his eligibility under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, and the object underlying the grant of temporary leave, namely, reformation, rehabilitation and maintenance of family and social ties. It is contended that once the petitioner fulfilled all the statutory requirements, rejection of his application solely on the basis of an adverse police opinion is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has been convicted for grave offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years. It is submitted that while processing the petitioner's application for temporary leave, the competent authority obtained reports from the concerned authorities in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. The Superintendent of Police, by communication dated 10.02.2026, did not recommend the petitioner's release on leave, whereafter the competent authority rejected the petitioner's application by order dated 11.03.2026. 6. It is contended by learned State counsel that the competent authority has exercised its discretion after considering the adverse 5 recommendation received from the police authorities and, therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the impugned order. It is submitted that the grant of parole or temporary leave is not a matter of right but is subject to satisfaction of the competent authority regarding the likelihood of maintenance of public peace and other relevant considerations. It is further submitted that this Court in proceedings relating to WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has already expressed serious concern regarding instances where prisoners released on parole, furlough or temporary leave have misused such liberty, resulting in law and order concerns. Therefore, the competent authority rightly exercised caution while dealing with the petitioner's request. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner's application seeking temporary leave under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 was duly forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur with a recommendation dated 03.12.2025. However, during the course of processing the application, the Superintendent of Police, by communication dated 10.02.2026, did not recommend the petitioner's release on temporary leave. Based upon the said adverse recommendation, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application. The competent authority has taken into consideration the adverse 6 report of the police authorities while arriving at its satisfaction that the petitioner ought not to be released on temporary leave. 8. This Court further finds that the petitioner stands convicted by judgment dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), District Raigarh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5(l) punishable under Section 6 and 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of twenty years, though his criminal appeal against the conviction has been admitted and is pending before this Court. Considering the gravity of the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted, the competent authority cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in taking a cautious approach while considering the petitioner's request for temporary leave. Further, this Court, in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In Re: Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), has expressed concern regarding instances where prisoners released on parole, furlough or temporary leave have misused such liberty, thereby giving rise to law and order issues. The competent authority was, therefore, justified in keeping the aforesaid concerns in mind while exercising its discretion under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. 7 9. Consequently, upon an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offences for which the petitioner stands convicted, the adverse recommendation furnished by the Superintendent of Police by communication dated 10.02.2026, and the concerns relating to maintenance of public order as well as the observations made by this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that the competent authority has exercised its discretion on relevant considerations and in accordance with law. 10. The impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the Collector- cum-District Magistrate rejecting the petitioner's application for temporary leave cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any justification to substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority, particularly when the impugned decision is founded upon considerations relating to public order, societal interest and the object sought to be achieved under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu