[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Neelkanth Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16800-DB
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
CHANDRA
WPCR No. 195 of 2026
Neelkanth Sahu S/o Sukaluram Sahu Aged About 52 Years Convict No.
2026/08, Presently 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 - Director General of Police Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Superintendent Central Jail, Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Collector and District Magistrate Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Superintendent of Police District Raipur Chhattisgarh
6 - Thana In Charge P.S. Pandri Raipur 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 06.10.2025 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
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;
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
is a convicted prisoner presently confined in Central Jail, Raipur,
bearing Convict Prisoner No. 2026/08, and is undergoing a sentence of
life imprisonment along with an additional sentence of six months in
connection with Sessions Trial arising out of Crime No. 350/2013 for
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC. The
petitioner has already undergone approximately 16 years of
incarceration. His conviction has been upheld by the this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 430/2015 vide order dated 27.07.2023, and the
Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
also been dismissed on 11.07.2024. It is submitted that throughout the
entire period of custody, the petitioner's conduct in jail has remained
satisfactory and no adverse or serious jail misconduct has been
reported against him, as reflected from the official jail record. It is
further submitted that in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoners'
Leave Rules, 1989, the petitioner had applied for grant of parole vide
application dated 18.07.2025 for the purpose of meeting his family
members, furnishing all necessary particulars including place of stay,
sureties, and an undertaking to comply with all conditions. The
application was duly processed by the Jail Superintendent and
forwarded to the District Magistrate, Raipur for consideration. However,
despite being complete in all respects, the application remained
pending for a considerable period and was ultimately rejected vide order
dated 06.10.2025 solely on the basis of a police report objecting to
parole on the ground that the petitioner is a life convict in a serious
offence. It is submitted that such rejection is mechanical and contrary to
law, as the gravity of the offence alone cannot be the sole ground to
deny parole, particularly when the petitioner has already undergone
substantial sentence, maintained good conduct, and satisfies all
statutory requirements. The impugned order thus suffers from non-
application of mind and deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and
would submit that that the petitioner is a convicted prisoner undergoing
life imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323
of the IPC, arising out of a serious and grave criminal act. The
conviction of the petitioner has been upheld by this Court and the
challenge to the same has also been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, thereby attaining finality. Considering the nature and gravity of
the offence, the petitioner cannot claim grant of parole as a matter of
right. It is submitted that parole is a discretionary relief and is to be
granted only upon due satisfaction of the competent authority regarding
the suitability of the prisoner for temporary release. It is further
submitted that the petitioner's application for parole was duly processed
in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989 and
was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Raipur for appropriate
consideration. During the course of such consideration, police
verification reports were obtained from the concerned authorities,
wherein objections were raised against the grant of parole to the
petitioner on account of the serious nature of the offence and potential
impact on public order and safety. The District Magistrate, after
considering the material on record including the adverse police report,
exercised his discretion and rejected the application vide order dated
06.10.2025. It is submitted that the said decision is based on relevant
considerations and does not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality. 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 that the petitioner is a life convict for
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC, and his
conviction has attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of
incarceration and that his jail conduct has been reported to be
satisfactory. However, it is equally well settled that grant of parole is not
a matter of right and is subject to the discretion of the competent
authority, to be exercised on the basis of relevant considerations
including the nature of the offence, the impact on society, and the report
of the local police authorities. 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. In the present case, the petitioner's application for parole was duly
considered by the competent authority, and upon obtaining police
verification, objections were raised primarily on account of the gravity of
the offence and concerns relating to public order and safety. The District
Magistrate, Raipur, after taking into account the material placed before
him, rejected the application vide order dated 06.10.2025. This Court
does not find any illegality, perversity, or arbitrariness in the decision-
making process so as to warrant interference under its writ jurisdiction.
7. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
