[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mohan Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16531-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 192 of 2026
Mohan Sahu S/o Keju Ram Sahu Aged About 39 Years Resident of
Village Ranbod, Tehsil And P.S. Navagarh, District- Bemetara
Chhattisgarh, Through- His Sister-In-Law Smt. Pramila Sahu W/o Johan
Sahu Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Ranbod, Tehsil And P.S.
Navagarh, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Principal Secretary, Department
of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
3 - The Additional District Magistrate Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.)
4 - The Superintendent of Police Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
10.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for the State.
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.04.10
17:59:16
+0530
following prayers:
"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 10.11.2025
Annexure P-1 and also do 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
has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, District - Bemetara
(C.G.) vide judgment dated 24.02.2024 in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2020
for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 (thrice) and 307 of the
IPC, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life (thrice) with fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for two months
and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine
additional RI for 3 months. Challenging the said conviction and
sentence, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal bearing CRA No.
1026 of 2024 before this Court, which came to dismissed vide order
dated 18.03.2025 and thereafter the petitioner has also filed SLP before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court being SLP (Crl.) No. 7136/2025, which was
also dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as the
petitioner is in jail since 29.01.2020 and has served more than 06 years
and 02 months of imprisonment, as such, the petitioner has made an
application before the Jail Superintendent seeking temporary release
(parole), which was duly forwarded to the Additional District Magistrate,
Bemetara. However, the District Magistrate, vide order dated
10.11.2025, rejected the said application summarily without following
the mandate of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for
short, "the Rules of 1989"). It is thus submitted that the order dated
10.11.2025 suffers from non-application of mind and violation of
statutory provisions, and is liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and
would submit that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offence i.e.
murder of three persons under Section 302/34 of the IPC and his
appeal has already been rejected by this Court and further that the SLP
preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. He further submitted that the application for temporary
release was considered by the Additional District Magistrate, Bemetara,
on the recommendation of the concerned 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.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the record, this Court finds that the petitioner stands convicted of
heinous offence i.e. murder of three persons under Section 302/34 of
the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment (thrice) and his appeal has
already been rejected by this Court and further that the SLP preferred
by the petitioner has also been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Further, 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.
7. 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
Brijmohan
