Gravity of offense and apprehension of threat to victims justify refusal of temporary release on parole.

The petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, on February 24, 2024, for the murder of three individuals under Sections 302/34 (thrice) and 307 of the IPC.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment (thrice) and his subsequent appeals to the High Court and the Supreme Court were dismissed on March 18, 2025, and May 16, 2025, respectively.

Having served over six years of imprisonment, the petitioner applied for temporary release (parole) under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989.

The Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Bemetara, rejected the application on November 10, 2025, following an adverse report from the Superintendent of Police.

The petitioner challenged this rejection via the present writ petition, alleging non-application of mind and violation of statutory rules.

The court applied the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989, which govern the temporary release of convicts.

It also considered the penal provisions of Section 302/34 and 307 of the IPC regarding the gravity of the underlying conviction.

Furthermore, 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 risks of prisoners absconding while on parole and the resulting impact on law and order.

The Court examined the grounds for the ADM's rejection and found them to be substantiated by valid concerns regarding public safety and the administration of justice.

It noted that the petitioner was convicted of the "heinous offence" of triple murder.

The Court emphasized that the refusal was based on a recommendation from the Superintendent of Police, who documented a grave apprehension of danger to the lives of the victim's family members should the petitioner be released.

The Court integrated the reasoning from WPPIL No. 33 of 2025, noting a rising trend of prisoners misusing parole to abscond.

Consequently, the Court held that the authority's decision to exercise caution was justified and did not suffer from a lack of mind or procedural irregularity, as the nature of the crime and the threat to witnesses/victims are relevant factors in parole considerations.

The Court held that the competent authority was justified in rejecting the parole application based on the gravity of the offense and the legitimate safety concerns expressed by the victim’s family.

The prayer to quash the impugned memo dated November 10, 2025, was denied.