MOHAN SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case type: WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL OTHER MATTER
Decided on: 10-04-2026

<div> 1 2026:CGHC:16531-DB 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. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the 2 2026:CGHC:16531-DB 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 3 2026:CGHC:16531-DB 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 4 2026:CGHC:16531-DB 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 . </div><table><thead><tr><th>Sd/-</th><th></th><th></th><th>Sd/-</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> Brijmohan </div>