1 CGHC010269922026 2026:CGHC:34706-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 449 of 2026 Shekh Faijan @ Faiju S/o Shekh Ramjan Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Guru Ghasidas Mandir Tarbahar, P.S. Tarbahar Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. District Magistrate, Bilaspur Dist. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.07 17:41:34 +0530 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus whereby to give direction to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by District Magistrate Bilaspur. 10.3 That, any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the judgment/order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Court of the 2nd District & Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (FTSC), POCSO District, Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 3,500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 months. He also submits that, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 859 of 2025 before this Hon’ble Court, which has subsequently been dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 3 petitioner had moved an application before the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, seeking grant of leave/parole for a period of 14 days for the purpose of meeting his family members and, particularly, his mother, who is suffering from ailments associated with old age. However, the said application came to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, vide order dated 28.11.2025. He further contended that, before considering the application for grant of parole, the District Magistrate had called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, regarding the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, vide letter dated 14.11.2025, recommended that parole may not be granted to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while passing the impugned order dated 28.11.2025, the learned District Magistrate has failed to properly consider the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989, particularly Rules 4, 6, 9, 11 and 12 thereof. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner was required to be considered in accordance with the aforesaid statutory provisions and the relevant circumstances placed before the authority. He also contended that the mother of the petitioner is an aged lady and is suffering from various ailments relating to old age. The petitioner seeks temporary release on parole for the limited purpose of meeting and attending to his aged mother and family members. The request of the petitioner is thus founded upon a genuine and humanitarian circumstance. 4 6. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two local sureties, namely, Sekh Ramjan and Bhagirathi, are ready and willing to furnish appropriate surety for the release of the petitioner on parole. Both the proposed sureties have also stated that they shall ensure that the petitioner duly surrenders before the jail authorities immediately upon completion of the period of parole. Thus, adequate safeguards are available to ensure the return and surrender of the petitioner after expiry of the parole period. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the local Councillor of the ward in which the family of the petitioner resides has also submitted a letter dated 07.11.2025 stating that the society/locality where the family of the petitioner is residing has no objection to the petitioner being granted parole. The aforesaid circumstance also demonstrates that there is no local objection to the temporary release of the petitioner on parole. He further contended that the petitioner is seeking only a limited period of 14 days' parole and is ready to abide by each and every condition that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court or the competent authority, including furnishing adequate sureties and ensuring his surrender before the concerned jail authorities within the prescribed period. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that, considering the age and health condition of the petitioner's mother, the availability of local sureties, the undertaking to surrender upon completion of the parole period, the absence of objection from the local 5 community, and the failure of the District Magistrate to properly consider the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989, the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 deserves to be set aside and the petitioner may kindly be granted parole for a period of 14 days, subject to such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act 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 and the material available on record, 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. 10. Learned State counsel 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 absconded and failed to surrender before the concerned authorities, thereby giving rise to serious law and order issues. It is, therefore, submitted that the 6 impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The petitioner seeks temporary release under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 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 concerned, the District Magistrate arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's temporary release would not be in the interest of public peace and security and consequently rejected the application. 13. It is also evident from the record that, despite issuance of notice, neither the victim nor any member of the victim's family appeared before the competent authority to place on record their opinion or objection regarding the petitioner's prayer for temporary release. However, the mere non-appearance of the victim or the victim's family would not preclude the competent authority from independently considering the police report and other relevant materials while exercising its powers under the Rules of 1989. The decision of the competent authority, therefore, cannot be said to be vitiated merely on account of the non- appearance of the victim or the victim's family. 14. This Court also cannot lose sight of the observations made in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In Re: Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation v. 7 State of Chhattisgarh & Others), wherein concern has been expressed regarding 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. 15. Having considered the material available on record, including the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and the reasons recorded by the District Magistrate, this Court does not find any patent illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan