Facts
The petitioner, Shyam Yadav, is a convict (Prisoner No. 296/65) undergoing a sentence at Central Jail, Ambikapur, following his conviction on February 12, 2024, for an offense under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Source reference: p. 2-3Having been in custody since February 2022 without receiving any leave, the petitioner applied for temporary leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.
Source reference: p. 3While the Sarpanch and the victim’s family expressed no objection, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Shankargarh and the Superintendent of Police (SP) issued adverse reports suggested that the petitioner’s release might disturb local peace, as both the petitioner and the victim reside in the same village.
Source reference: p. 3-4Consequently, the District Magistrate rejected the application by order dated March 18, 2026.
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner challenged this rejection via a writ petition.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the District Magistrate’s order rejecting the application for temporary leave suffered from non-application of mind or arbitrariness.
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the petitioner’s past criminal antecedents and the concern for public order outweigh the reformative objectives of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.
Source reference: p. 4-6Law Applied
Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, which govern the eligibility and procedure for granting temporary leave to convicts.
Source reference: p. 3Leave is not an absolute right but graduated by considerations of public order and societal interest.
Source reference: p. 6WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto PIL v. State of Chhattisgarh) highlighted concerns regarding the misuse of parole and temporary leave by prisoners, leading to law and order issues.
Source reference: p. 5-6Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to reviewing the legality and rationality of the decision-making process rather than substituting the authority’s discretion with its own.
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The High Court observed that the District Magistrate did not act arbitrarily but based the decision on material evidence, specifically the reports from the SHO and SP.
Source reference: p. 5The court noted that because the petitioner and the victim belong to the same village, the apprehension of a disturbance to "peace and tranquility" was a relevant and valid consideration.
Source reference: para. 7The court examined the petitioner’s antecedents, noting that while he was acquitted in a previous case of a similar nature, it was an acquittal based on the "benefit of doubt" rather than a finding of innocence.
Source reference: para. 6, 8The court reasoned that the gravity of the POCSO conviction combined with these antecedents justified the cautious, restrictive approach adopted by the authorities to ensure societal welfare and public order.
Source reference: para. 8-9Holding
The Court held that the impugned order dated March 18, 2026, did not suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or mala fides and the competent authority exercised its discretion based on relevant factors including security concerns and public interest.
The Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Source reference: para. 10-11Original Court PDF
SHYAM YADAVvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in