1 CGHC010328672026 2026:CGHC:38293-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 508 of 2026 Gangaram Gabel S/o Jagatram Gabel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Lachanpur, Post Basanpur, Thana Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, Through His Son Rakesh Kumar Gabel, Aged About 32 Years, S/o Gangaram Gabel, R/o Village Aadil, Tehsil Adbhar, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Janjgir Champa, Office Of The Sp, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Central Jail, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Superintendent Of Police Sakti, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.09.01 10:28:58 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):- “I.That Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and direction, quashing/setting aside the Impugned Order bearing Endorsement No. 3207/Parole/2026 dated 16.03.2026 (passed on 17.03.2026) passed by the Respondent No. 2 (The Collector & District Magistrate, Janjgir- Champa). II.That Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to release the convict Gangaram Gabel on first parole for a period of 16 days on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit. III.That Pass any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice” 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/convict Gangaram Gabel (Prisoner No. 1910/136), who is undergoing life imprisonment at Central Jail, Bilaspur pursuant to the judgment dated 27.09.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti (C.G.) for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 and 34 of the IPC. His criminal appeal has been dismissed and his Special Leave Petition (Criminal) is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Having undergone a substantial period of incarceration and having his jail conduct certified as normal/good by the Superintendent of Central Jail, 3 Bilaspur, the petitioner applied for his first temporary parole for 16 days under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989, to meet his family members. Two sureties, namely Shri Ramcharan Yadav and Shri Balaram Yadav, appeared before the authorities and furnished affidavits undertaking full responsibility for the petitioner and his timely return. However, the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa, vide report dated 08.03.2026, recommended rejection of parole on the basis of objections raised by the local Sarpanch and some villagers, primarily on the ground that the petitioner belonged to another village and proposed to stay at Village Lachhanpur. Relying upon the said police report, Respondent No.2, Collector & District Magistrate, Janjgir- Champa, rejected the petitioner’s parole application vide impugned order dated 17.03.2026. The petitioner has therefore challenged the said order as being mechanical, arbitrary and contrary to the reformative object of the parole rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that grant of parole is a reformative measure intended to enable a convict to maintain his family and social ties and to facilitate his rehabilitation, and that the same cannot be denied on vague, routine or cosmetic grounds. He would submit that the authorities have completely overlooked the favourable report dated 13.12.2025 submitted by the Jail Superintendent, which records that the petitioner’s conduct during incarceration has remained normal and peaceful and that he has maintained discipline and complied with the prison rules. He would further submit that the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police against grant of parole is founded merely upon the generalized objections raised by the local Sarpanch and a few villagers, without there being any specific 4 material to demonstrate any grave or imminent threat to public order or apprehension of breach of peace. It is contended that such routine objections, in the absence of any concrete material, could not have constituted a valid ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application for temporary parole for 16 days. Learned counsel would further submit that the Executive Magistrate, vide report dated 09.03.2026, has recorded the availability of reliable sureties, namely Shri Ramcharan Yadav and Shri Balaram Yadav, who furnished affidavits and undertook responsibility for the petitioner’s good conduct and timely return to the prison. Thus, according to learned counsel, the impugned order has been passed mechanically, without proper consideration of the petitioner’s satisfactory jail conduct, availability of sureties and the reformative object underlying the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989, and the arbitrary denial of temporary release, in the absence of any legally sustainable ground, also affects the petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of temporary parole has rightly been rejected by the competent authority. It is submitted that the petitioner seeks to avail parole for going to Village Lachhanpur, which is not his native village, for the purpose of meeting his friends and relatives, and the local authorities have expressed apprehension regarding his stay in the said village. Learned State counsel would further submit that the competent authority has considered the report of the police as well as the objections received from the local residents and, therefore, the order rejecting the application for parole does not call for any interference by this Court. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment and has sought temporary parole for a period of 16 days to meet his family members, has been denied parole primarily on the basis of the report of the police authorities and the objections raised by certain local residents. The record further reflects that the Jail Superintendent, vide report dated 13.12.2025, has reported the conduct of the petitioner during incarceration to be normal/good and there is no material placed on record indicating any misconduct on his part while in prison. It is also not in dispute that the proposed sureties, have furnished affidavits and undertaken responsibility for the petitioner during the period of his temporary release. However, the police authorities have expressed apprehension on the ground that the petitioner proposes to stay at a village other than his native village and to meet his friends and relatives. In the considered opinion of this Court, the legality of the impugned order is required to be examined on the basis of the material available before the competent authority at the relevant point of time. The reasons recorded by the competent authority, though based upon the police report and local objections, cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be said to be so perverse or without jurisdiction as would warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 8. At the same time, the petitioner’s satisfactory conduct in jail and the availability of sureties are relevant circumstances which may be placed before the competent authority in the event of a fresh application. 6 Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to parole, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application for grant of temporary parole before the competent authority, if so advised. 10. In the event such an application is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider the same independently, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989, and applicable law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika