Apprehension of threat to victim safety and gravity of offence justify denial of parole release.

The petitioner, a 75-year-old man, was convicted under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and originally sentenced to life imprisonment (until natural death) by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bilaspur, on March 27, 2023

Upon appeal (CRA No. 972/2023), the High Court reduced the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment

The petitioner has been incarcerated since July 1, 2019

Seeking temporary release, the petitioner applied for parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.

Following an inquiry by the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, rejected the application on February 9, 2026

The rejection was based on objections from the victim’s family and an apprehension of danger to their lives

The petitioner challenged this order, alleging non-application of mind and violation of statutory provisions

1. Whether the order dated February 9, 2026, rejecting the petitioner’s application for parole, was passed in violation of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, or suffered from non-application of mind

2. Whether the apprehension of the victim’s family and general concerns regarding prisoners absconding while on parole constitute valid grounds for the denial of temporary release

The Court primarily considered the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, which govern the temporary release of convicts on parole

It applied Section 376(D) of the IPC regarding the nature of the heinous offense committed

the Court relied on judicial observations made in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh Others), which highlighted the rising tendency of prisoners to abscond after being released on parole or short-term bail, thereby creating public order and safety risks

The Court found no infirmity in the District Magistrate’s decision to deny parole

In its reasoning, the Court balanced the petitioner’s statutory right to seek parole against the gravity of the offense—gang rape—and the safety of the victim's family

The Court noted that the police inquiry specifically recorded a "grave apprehension of danger" to the lives of the victim’s family members should the petitioner be released

By integrating the concerns raised in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025, the Court emphasized that the misuse of parole by absconding prisoners has a direct bearing on public order

Consequently, the Court held that the competent authority was justified in exercising caution, and the rejection was not merely summary but based on valid safety concerns and the nature of the crime

The Court concluded that the order dated February 9, 2026, was justified given the heinous nature of the crime and the legitimate threat perceived by the victim’s family

The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit