[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Hemlal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16799-DB
NAFR
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 194 of 2026
Digitally
signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
CHANDRA
Hemlal Yadav S/o Sukhram Yadav, Aged About 26 Years Convict No.
6816/31, Presenlty Lodged In Central Jail Raipur, District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
2 - Inspector General of Prions, Chhattisgarh Raipur District- Raipur
(C.G.)
3 - Superintendent, Central Jail , Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
4 - Collector and District Magistrate Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh
5 - Superintendent of Police, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh
6 - Thana In Charge Police Station Tilda Neora, District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Gayatri Chouhan, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
13.04.2026
1. Heard Ms. Gayatri Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"10.1 Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside
memorandum dated 01.10.2025 issued by Thana In
charge, Police Station Tilda Neora, District Raipur
(C.G.) (Annexure P/5).
10.2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents
to release the petitioner for 16 days in accordance
with Chhattisgarh Prisoner's leave Rule, 1889;
10.3. Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
was convicted by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
District Raipur in Sessions Case No. 207/2019 for offences under
Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and was sentenced to life
imprisonment, and has been in custody since 30.06.2019. In appeal, the
Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the case by setting aside the
conviction under Section 302 IPC and instead convicting the petitioner
under Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years. It is submitted that the petitioner has been
released on parole on three occasions previously without any adverse
incident. During his last parole from 12.03.2025 to 29.03.2025, while
residing at his native village Otgan, a complaint was made by one Lata
Sahu alleging that the petitioner had threatened her life, and similar
representations were made before the Jail Superintendent and the
District Magistrate, Raipur, leading to directions for an enquiry by the
police authorities. Pursuant to the said directions, the Station House
Officer, Police Station Tilda Neora conducted a detailed enquiry wherein
the petitioner denied the allegations and statements of the village
Sarpanch and nearby residents were recorded, all of whom denied any
such incident. The enquiry report dated 26.05.2025 clearly concluded
that no incident of threat or intimidation had occurred and suggested
that the complaint was motivated by the complainant's prior objection to
the petitioner's release on parole. Despite this clear exoneration, the
Jail Superintendent sought a further opinion, and based on subsequent
statements of the complainant and certain objectors, the Station House
Officer opined against the petitioner's release. It is submitted that such
an opinion is contrary to the earlier enquiry findings and lacks
substantive basis, rendering the denial of parole arbitrary and unjust,
and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be considered for release on
parole in accordance with law.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner
was originally convicted for grave offences under Sections 302 and 201
of the IPC by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, District
Raipur and sentenced to life imprisonment. Although in the appeal, this
High Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC and
reduced the sentence to 10 years, the nature of the offence remains
serious and involves culpable homicide. It is further submitted that
during his last release on parole from 12.03.2025 to 29.03.2025, a
complaint was lodged by the victim, Lata Sahu, alleging that the
petitioner had threatened her life. The said complaint was also
submitted before the Jail Superintendent as well as the District
Magistrate, Raipur, necessitating intervention by the authorities and
initiation of an enquiry through the Senior Superintendent of Police. It is
submitted that although an initial enquiry report dated 26.05.2025 did
not substantiate the allegations, the competent authority, considering
the sensitivity of the matter and the safety of the victim, sought a further
opinion from the concerned Police Station. Upon recording statements
of the victim and other persons including Balram Sahu and members of
the locality, it emerged that there exists strong apprehension and
objection to the petitioner's release in the village. Taking into account
the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the
apprehension expressed by the victim, and the possibility of breach of
peace, the Station House Officer opined that it would not be appropriate
to release the petitioner on parole. 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. It is thus
submitted that the decision to deny parole is based on relevant
considerations of public safety and cannot be said to be arbitrary, and
therefore does not warrant interference.
5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner stands
convicted for a serious offence, which though modified by this Court
from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, nonetheless pertains to
culpable homicide. The record further reflects that during the petitioner's
last release on parole, a complaint was lodged by the victim alleging
threat to her life. Though an initial enquiry report dated 26.05.2025 did
not substantiate the allegations, it is evident that the authorities, in view
of the gravity of the apprehension raised, sought a further opinion. The
subsequent inputs gathered by the local police, including statements of
the victim and other residents, indicate subsisting apprehension and
opposition to the petitioner's release in the locality.
6. In matters concerning grant of parole, considerations of public
safety, maintenance of law and order, and the possibility of disturbance
or threat to the victim are of paramount importance. The competent
authorities have taken into account the relevant material and have
formed an opinion that release of the petitioner on parole may not be
appropriate in the present circumstances. This Court does not find the
said decision to be arbitrary or without basis so as to warrant
interference in exercise of its jurisdiction.
7. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
