Facts
The petitioner, a convict serving a sentence in Central Jail Bilaspur under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act since September 10, 2023, applied for 14 days of temporary leave (parole) to visit his family and two-year-old daughter
Source reference: p. 1-2The District Magistrate of Janjgir-Champa (Respondent No. 3) rejected the application on January 12, 2026, based on an adverse report and objection from the Superintendent of Police
Source reference: para. 4, 6The petitioner challenged this rejection via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the authorities failed to follow Rules 4, 6, 9, 11, and 12 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989
Source reference: para. 3Issues
1. Whether the District Magistrate’s order rejecting the petitioner's parole application was legally sustainable under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989.
Source reference: para. 3, 7Law Applied
The court’s decision was governed by the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989, specifically Rules 4, 6, 9, 11, and 12, which prescribe the procedure and criteria for granting leave to prisoners
Source reference: para. 3The court also considered the discretionary powers of the District Magistrate to grant or deny parole based on the recommendations of law enforcement agencies, such as the Superintendent of Police, regarding the potential risks or objections to a prisoner's temporary release
Source reference: para. 4, 6Reasoning
The court examined the Impugned Order dated January 12, 2026, noting that the District Magistrate’s decision was not arbitrary but based on a specific recommendation from the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa
Source reference: para. 6This recommendation was informed by a report from the concerned Police Station In-charge, who raised formal objections to the petitioner’s release on parole
Source reference: para. 6The court emphasized that the petitioner was convicted for serious offenses under the IPC and the NDPS Act, and his appeal against said conviction is currently pending
Source reference: para. 3, 7By aligning the District Magistrate’s concurrence with the police report against the nature of the petitioner's crimes, the court found no procedural "illegality or infirmity" in the decision-making process
Source reference: para. 7Holding
The High Court held that the rejection of the parole application by the District Magistrate was valid and justified given the adverse police report and the gravity of the offenses committed
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative regarding the legality of the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition
Source reference: para. 8No relief was granted to the petitioner.
Source reference: no citationOriginal Court PDF
Anand Kumar Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [2026:CGHC:10945-DB]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in