SUSHIL KUMAR CHAUHAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:12858-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed
by INDRAJEET
SAHU
Date: 2026.03.19
10:24:20 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
INDRAJEET
SAHU
WPCR No. 147 of 2026
1 - Sushil Kumar Chauhan S/o Mansai Ram Chauhan Aged About 40 Years
Prisoner No. 555/64 R/o Near Kachari Gyatri Mandir Bemtatoli Kunkuri
District Jashpur (C.G.), Through His Sister- Reshmi Bai W/o Laxmi Ram Aged
42 Years, R/o Kadmura Patratoli P.S. Narayanpur Tehsil Begicha District
Jashpur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Collector District Magistrate Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.)
3 - Superintendent Of Police Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.)
4 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Ambikapur District Surguja(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Shri Nishikant Sinha, Advocate.
For State : Shri Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Order on Board
18.03.2026
Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

2
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the impugned order dated 15.07.2025
(ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 2.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner
on temporary leave for period of 14 days as prescribed
under Chhattisgarh Prisoner Leave Rules 1989.
10.3 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this
case”
2 The petitioner's application for grant of leave (parole) has been
rejected by the District Magistrate, Jashpur, vide order dated
15.07.2025 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent
of Police holding that the petitioner's release is likely to cause threat to
the victim and her family after his (petitioner) coming into association
with other co-accused of same crime who have been acquitted by the
court and further potential untoward incident also cannot be ruled out if
he is released. Even Village Sarpanch have also raised objection in
granting leaved to the present petitioner.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has
been convicted for the offence under Sections 366 and 376(d) IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years. Appeal filed before this High
Court against his conviction has already been rejected in CRA No.539
of 2023 and thereby his conviction has been affirmed by this Court. He
would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been
rejected by the District Magistrate summarily without following the

3
relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave
Rules 1989 (in short ‘the Rule, 1989’) as well as Rules 6, 9, 11 & 12 of
the Rules, 1989, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside
and the petition deserves to be allowed.
4 On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order
and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and the material available on record.
6 Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate,
Jashpur was swaying with the opinion of the concerned Superintendent
of Police that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is likelihood
that he will again commit the offence and threat the victim and his
family members. He may also cause breach of peace in the society
along with other co-accused who has been acquitted in the same
crime, and accordingly rejected the application of the petitioner for
grant of parole. Thus, considering all these facts the concerned
Superintendent of Police has not recommended for parole to the
petitioner which has been affirmed by the concerned District
Magistrate.
7 Though parole is a mechanism for rehabilitation, it cannot be granted if
it poses a genuine risk to public safety. Therefore, considering heinous
offence committed by the petitioner, we do not see any good reason to
interfere with the order impugned rejecting parole application of the
petitioner.
8 Apart from the consideration of the District Magistrate, Jashpur, we
noticed the issue involved in WPPIL No. 33/2025 (In the matter of Suo

4
Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ),
which is pending before this Court. In the said WPPIL No. 33/2025, on
being direction made by this Court, the Director General of Police,
PHQ, Chhattisgarh, filed his affidavit informing the fact about number of
absconding accused persons who have been released on bail. It is
necessary to reproduce the relevant part of the affidavit of the Director
General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which has been observed in
the order dated 08.12.2025 in the WPPIL No. 33/2025, which reads as
under:-
"4. That, the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits that
in order to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Court, the
deponent has immediately acted upon the letter of the office of
the Advocate General dated 17/10/2025 and in continuation of
the same, on 22/10/2025 necessary instructions and directions
have immediately been issued to all the Range Inspector
General of Polices including the Rail to ensure arrest and entry
of40 prisoners who are still absconding, into the jail by carrying
out a special drive in this regard and submit a report about the
efforts made for arrest of the accused persons by the concerned
Police by 02/12/2025 by enclosing the list of 40 absconding
prisoners, who were released on parole, but, have not
surrendered and are still absconding so that the order of the
Hon'ble Court can be complied with by submitting the information
in this regard. To demonstrate this fact, copy of the letter dated
22/10/2025 is filed herewith as Annexure A/3.
5. on That, the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits
that taking cognizance of poor performance / efforts / progress in
arresting the absconding prisoners, 29/10/2025 a DO letter dated
29/10/2025 has personally been written to all the Range
Inspector General of Polices, Chhattisgarh to carry out a special
drive for arresting the remaining absconded accused and further

5
ensure their entry into the jail after their arrest by preparing a
working plan in this regard under the supervision of concerned
District Superintendent of Polices. To demonstrate this fact,
copies of the DO letters dated 29/10/2025 are filed herewith as
Annexure A/4 colly.
6. That, the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits that
as per the information received from 5 Circle Jails of the State,
as on 02/12/2025, 2 absconded prisoners of Circle Jail
Ambikapur and Circle Jail Jagdalpur have been arrested out of
total40 prisoners and remaining is 38 in number. To demonstrate
this fact, copy of the chart showing arrest of 2 absconded
prisoners out of 40 prisoners is being filed herewith as Annexure
A/5.
7 That, the deponent respectfully submits that the Police
Personnel have made their all sincere and best efforts to arrest
the aforesaid 40 absconded prisoners / accused and as a result
of which the Police has succeeded in arresting 2 absconded
prisoners. It is respectfully submitted that to arrest the remaining
38 absconding prisoners, the continuous efforts are being made
by the concerned Police Officials and as soon as the said
accused persons are arrested, they would be produced before
the concerned learned Trial Court from where they will be sent to
the Jail. That, the deponent most respectfully submits that he has
the highest regard and respect for the lawful authority of this
Hon'ble Court as well as its orders and directions issued from
time to time and is duty bound to adhere to and abide by the
orders.”
9 This Court also noticed the increasing number of absconding accused
persons who have been either released on parole or bail that once they
released on bail/parol, they are not surrendering after completion of
their period of parole.
10 Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case

6
and in view of the aforesaid considerations, we are not inclined to
release the petitioner on leave.
11 Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
inder