GANGARAM GABEL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010328672026 2026:CGHC:38293-DB
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
Date:
2026.09.01
10:28:58
+0530
NAFR
SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 508 of 2026
Gangaram Gabel S/o Jagatram Gabel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village
Lachanpur, Post Basanpur, Thana Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa,
Chhattisgarh, Through His Son Rakesh Kumar Gabel, Aged About 32 Years,
S/o Gangaram Gabel, R/o Village Aadil, Tehsil Adbhar, Distt. Sakti,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail)
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Collector And District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Distt. Janjgir
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Superintendent Of Police Janjgir Champa, Office Of The Sp, District
Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Superintendent Central Jail, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - The Superintendent Of Police Sakti, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
31.08.2026
1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr.S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):-
“I.That Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ and direction, quashing/setting aside the
Impugned Order bearing Endorsement No. 3207/Parole/2026
dated 16.03.2026 (passed on 17.03.2026) passed by the
Respondent No. 2 (The Collector & District Magistrate, Janjgir-
Champa).
II.That Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to release the convict Gangaram Gabel on first
parole for a period of 16 days on such terms and conditions as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
III.That Pass any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice”
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/convict
Gangaram Gabel (Prisoner No. 1910/136), who is undergoing life
imprisonment at Central Jail, Bilaspur pursuant to the judgment dated
27.09.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti (C.G.)
for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 and 34 of the IPC. His criminal
appeal has been dismissed and his Special Leave Petition (Criminal) is
pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Having
undergone a substantial period of incarceration and having his jail
conduct certified as normal/good by the Superintendent of Central Jail,

3
Bilaspur, the petitioner applied for his first temporary parole for 16 days
under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989, to meet his
family members. Two sureties, namely Shri Ramcharan Yadav and Shri
Balaram Yadav, appeared before the authorities and furnished
affidavits undertaking full responsibility for the petitioner and his timely
return. However, the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa, vide
report dated 08.03.2026, recommended rejection of parole on the basis
of objections raised by the local Sarpanch and some villagers, primarily
on the ground that the petitioner belonged to another village and
proposed to stay at Village Lachhanpur. Relying upon the said police
report, Respondent No.2, Collector & District Magistrate, Janjgir-
Champa, rejected the petitioner’s parole application vide impugned
order dated 17.03.2026. The petitioner has therefore challenged the
said order as being mechanical, arbitrary and contrary to the
reformative object of the parole rules.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that grant of parole is a
reformative measure intended to enable a convict to maintain his family
and social ties and to facilitate his rehabilitation, and that the same
cannot be denied on vague, routine or cosmetic grounds. He would
submit that the authorities have completely overlooked the favourable
report dated 13.12.2025 submitted by the Jail Superintendent, which
records that the petitioner’s conduct during incarceration has remained
normal and peaceful and that he has maintained discipline and
complied with the prison rules. He would further submit that the
recommendation of the Superintendent of Police against grant of
parole is founded merely upon the generalized objections raised by the
local Sarpanch and a few villagers, without there being any specific

4
material to demonstrate any grave or imminent threat to public order or
apprehension of breach of peace. It is contended that such routine
objections, in the absence of any concrete material, could not have
constituted a valid ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application for
temporary parole for 16 days. Learned counsel would further submit
that the Executive Magistrate, vide report dated 09.03.2026, has
recorded the availability of reliable sureties, namely Shri Ramcharan
Yadav and Shri Balaram Yadav, who furnished affidavits and undertook
responsibility for the petitioner’s good conduct and timely return to the
prison. Thus, according to learned counsel, the impugned order has
been passed mechanically, without proper consideration of the
petitioner’s satisfactory jail conduct, availability of sureties and the
reformative object underlying the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules,
1989, and the arbitrary denial of temporary release, in the absence of
any legally sustainable ground, also affects the petitioner’s right to life
and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the application
preferred by the petitioner for grant of temporary parole has rightly
been rejected by the competent authority. It is submitted that the
petitioner seeks to avail parole for going to Village Lachhanpur, which
is not his native village, for the purpose of meeting his friends and
relatives, and the local authorities have expressed apprehension
regarding his stay in the said village. Learned State counsel would
further submit that the competent authority has considered the report of
the police as well as the objections received from the local residents
and, therefore, the order rejecting the application for parole does not
call for any interference by this Court.

5
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the petition
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner, who is
undergoing life imprisonment and has sought temporary parole for a
period of 16 days to meet his family members, has been denied parole
primarily on the basis of the report of the police authorities and the
objections raised by certain local residents. The record further reflects
that the Jail Superintendent, vide report dated 13.12.2025, has
reported the conduct of the petitioner during incarceration to be
normal/good and there is no material placed on record indicating any
misconduct on his part while in prison. It is also not in dispute that the
proposed sureties, have furnished affidavits and undertaken
responsibility for the petitioner during the period of his temporary
release. However, the police authorities have expressed apprehension
on the ground that the petitioner proposes to stay at a village other
than his native village and to meet his friends and relatives. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the legality of the impugned order is
required to be examined on the basis of the material available before
the competent authority at the relevant point of time. The reasons
recorded by the competent authority, though based upon the police
report and local objections, cannot, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, be said to be so perverse or without jurisdiction as
would warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
8. At the same time, the petitioner’s satisfactory conduct in jail and the
availability of sureties are relevant circumstances which may be placed
before the competent authority in the event of a fresh application.

6
Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
petitioner’s entitlement to parole, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to submit a fresh application for grant of temporary parole
before the competent authority, if so advised.
10. In the event such an application is submitted, the concerned authority
shall consider the same independently, in accordance with the
Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989, and applicable law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika