1 2026:CGHC:20072-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 236 of 2026 Tekchand Dhruwe S/o Geetaram Dhruwe Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Saroudhi, P.S. Salhewara, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai Chhattisgarh Through His Friend Nitesh Gupta, S/o Kishor Gupta Aged About 41 Years, R/o House No. 490, Street No. 15, Kurud Road, Chandra Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Smriti Nagar Chowki (P.S. Supela), District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Magistrate District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.05.01 10:09:29 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. C. R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioner's leave case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court. 10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 10.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a convicted prisoner presently lodged in Central Jail, Durg and has been in continuous custody since 09.12.2019, thereby completing more than six years of imprisonment. As per the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, the petitioner fulfills all the mandatory conditions for grant of 3 leave, including completion of the minimum required period of sentence and maintaining good conduct without any jail offence. He further submits that an application for grant of leave was duly preferred by the petitioner before the Jail Superintendent, which has been rejected by the competent authority primarily on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, which is contrary to the mandate of Rule 6 of the said Rules. 4. It is further submitted that impugned memo dated 10.05.2024 send by Superintendent of Police for denial of leave can only be justified where there exists a real and tangible apprehension of threat to public safety, which is completely absent in the present case. Moreover, similarly situated prisoners have been granted relief by this Court in identical matters, reinforcing the petitioner’s entitlement to the same benefit. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all conditions imposed by the authorities during the period of leave. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned memo dated 10.05.2024 and direct the competent authority/ respondent to grant leave to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 5. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of the State the petitioner is a convicted prisoner undergoing sentence pursuant to the judgment affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. It is further submitted that parole is not a matter of right but is subject to statutory rules and administrative satisfaction, and the petitioner’s application is 4 under due consideration by the competent authority. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In order to decide the petitioner's application, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions contained in Rule, 1989 which state as under:- "4. Conditions of Leave.--The prisoners shall be granted leave under sub-section (1) of Section 31-A of the Act on the following conditions, namely :-- (a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31-A of the Act; (b) He has not committed any offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave; (c) The releasing authority must be satisfied that the leave may be granted without detriment to the public interest; (d) He gives in writing to the Releasing Authority the place or places which he intends to visit during the period of his leave and undertake not to visit any other place during such period without obtaining prior permission of the Releasing Authority in that behalf; and (e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Releasing Authority if 5 such security is demanded by the Releasing Authority. 6. Sanctioning Authority for first leave.-- (a) If the District Magistrate, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, is satisfied that the request for grant of leave can be granted without detriment to public interest, he shall issue to the Superintendent a duly signed and sealed warrant in Form 'A' to the prisoner. The District Magistrate shall enter in the warrant the number of days that will be required for the journeys by the shortest practicable route to and from the place at which during his leave the prisoner proposes to reside or if he proposes to visit more than one place, the fartherest place from the Jail which he proposed to visit. Note.--The District Magistrate is responsible for the proper carrying out of these instructions. He may of course, consult the District Superintendent of Police on the advisability of granting the leave. The Superintendent of Police should also obtain the opinion of the Gram Panchayat of the village, where the prisoner resided before conviction and send to the District Magistrate along with his report. But the responsibility for the action is that of the District 6 Magistrate. He should use his discretion and should refuse to grant leave only in cases in which he is satisfied that release is fraught with danger to the public safety. Security should be demanded only when it is really necessary, for example, when there is reasonable apprehension that the prisoner will break leave. When security is required, the District Magistrate of the place where the surety resides should be asked by the releasing District Magistrate to accept the surety and not call the surety to his own headquarters. If the prisoner intends to visit another district, where his near relatives reside, the concerning District Magistrate shall make necessary enquiries from the District Magistrate of that District before sanctioning the leave. (b) If the District Magistrate considers that the grant of leave to the prisoner is undesirable in the public interest, he shall intimate his opinion to the Superintendent, who shall inform the prisoner that his request has been rejected. 9. Conditions for release on leave – After satisfaction regarding prisoner's eligibility for leave, Competent Authority shall release such prisoner on leave on the following conditions :- 7 (1) During the period of his leave, he shall not go to any place other than those places which have been mentioned in his leave application. (2) During his leave he shall neither commit any crime nor involve in any such act that may have its bearing on public interest. (3) After spending his leave he shall present himself at the Jail from where he was released, but in the event of accident, disease, natural calamity, such prisoner can surrender himself at any other nearest Police Station with proper ground. Note :- Provided that no prisoner shall claim leave as a right for leave granted under these rules.] 11. Arrest of a prisoner in event of breach of conditions.– (1) If any prisoner does not present himself on the evening of fixed date of his return, he shall be treated as prisoner at large and an FIR shall be registered against him at the Police Station in whose jurisdiction concerning jail (where prisoner was expected to surrender) is situated, and concerned Station House Officer shall put up challan against escaped prisoner. Station House Officer shall initiate necessary actions as per provisions 8 contained in Sections 82 and 83 of Criminal Procedure Code and information regarding such actions shall be sent to Jail Superintendent by him. (2) If negligence regarding registering the FIR in case of such offence has been shown by police in spite of having received information from Superintendent of Jail under Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989, Police Superintendent shall inform Inspector General of Prisons after registration of such crime of the concerned Police Officer under Section 221 of Criminal Procedure Code. (3) In the event of escape of prisoner during the period of leave, case shall be registered against the guarantor at concerned Police Station for abetment. (4) In the event of escape of prisoner during leave Jail Superintendent shall submit application before the Court of Tahsildar for initiating actions regarding forfeiture of his security as well as attachment of guarantor’s assets. On this application, Tahsil Court shall take necessary actions for attachment of assets. 12. Penalty for overstay.–If the prisoner returns to the jail of his own accord after the date fixed for his return he shall be admitted 9 to the jail and the prisoner's return and the reason for the delay shall be reported immediately to the District Magistrate of the district in which the jail is situated, for his orders where the prisoner should be prosecuted. If it is not considered to prosecute, the Superintendent should hold an enquiry and may for good and sufficient reasons, award one of the following punishments:– (a) Formal Warning. (b) Forfeiture for a period not exceeding 3 months privileges of interview, receiving and sending letters. (c) Degradation from higher to lower grade. (d) Forfeiture of 5 days remission for each day’s overstayal on leave which shall not exceed total period of his sentence inclusive of unexpired period of sentence. 8. In the matter of Shor v. State of U.P. decided on 05.08.2020 in WP(Cr.) No. 58/2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted the benefit of parole to those, whose application was rejected on the ground that the crime is heinous and release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinunder for ready reference: “….Merely repeating the fact that the 10 crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2 of the United Provinces Prisoners Release on Prohibition Act, 1938. Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner is not “incapacitated” from committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life is released from prison….” 9. Upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.12.2019 and has completed more than six years of imprisonment, thereby fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 for grant of leave. The record further reflects that the petitioner had preferred an application for grant of leave through the Jail Superintendent, which has been rejected by the competent authority primarily on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police. It is well settled that though grant of leave is not an absolute right, the competent authority is required to exercise its discretion judiciously and in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules, 1989, which mandates that leave can only be denied when there exists a cogent material indicating threat to public safety. 11 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority/ respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of leave afresh, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika