[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Kishanlal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15490-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 180 of 2026
Kishanlal S/o Shri Ruplal Markam, aged about 75 years R/o Ward No.
14, Ramnagar, Post and P.S.- Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home (Jail),
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - District Magistrate Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Superintendent of Jail Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the impugned order dated 09.02.2026
(ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the District Magistrate,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh;
10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent to release of the petitioner on
parole;
10.3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other relief(s) that it deems fit and proper in
the interest of justice and equity, in Favor of the
petitioner"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bilaspur
under Section 376(D) of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment (till
natural death) vide order dated 27.03.2023 in Sessions Case No.
128/2019, however, the appeal filed by the appellant against the said
order in CRA No. 972/2023 has been partly allowed by this Court and
his sentence has been reduced from life imprisonment (till natural
death) to RI for 20 years. The said prisoner is presently lodged in
Central jail, Bilaspur since 01.07.2019. He further submitted that the
petitioner, after having served a substantial portion of his sentence,
applied for temporary release on parole under the provisions of the
Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, the respondent authorities
forwarded the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, for
inquiry. As part of this inquiry, statements were recorded from members
of the victim, who raised objection to the release of the petitioner on
parole and in the lieu of the said objection the District Magistrate,
Bilaspur rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated
09.02.2026, summarily without following the mandate of the
Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989. It is thus submitted that the
order dated 09.02.2026 suffers from non-application of mind and
violation of statutory provisions, and is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and
would submit that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences
under Section 376(D) of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment (till
natural death), however, the appeal filed by the appellant against the
said order has been partly allowed by this Court and his sentence has
been reduced from life imprisonment (till natural death) to RI for 20
years. The application for temporary release was considered by the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur, on the recommendation of
the Superintendent of Police, who specifically recorded the objection of
the victim's family that if the petitioner is released even temporarily,
there is a grave apprehension of danger to their lives. It is further
pointed out that this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of
Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Others) has already expressed its concern that several prisoners
released on parole or short-term bail have absconded and have not
returned to custody, thereby creating serious law and order issues. In
light of such observations and considering the apprehension expressed
by the victim's family, the competent authority rightly rejected the
petitioner's application for parole, and no interference is warranted.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated
09.02.2026. The rejection of the petitioner's application for temporary
release is based not only on the nature and gravity of the offences for
which he stands convicted, but also on the valid apprehension
expressed by the victim's family regarding threat to their lives.
Furthermore, this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 has already observed
the tendency of prisoners misusing the concession of parole and
absconding, which has a direct bearing on public order and safety. In
view of these circumstances, the authority was justified in exercising
caution and rejecting the petitioner's request.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be
and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
