Parole may be denied based on victim safety concerns and systemic risks of prisoners absconding.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of leave/parole under the C.G. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, in light of adverse police reports and objections from the victim's family

The court held

The Court held that given the circumstances and the broader issue of absconding convicts in the state, it was not inclined to grant the petitioner leave

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the District Magistrate rejecting the parole application was upheld

01Facts

The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Priti Koshle by the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on November 26, 2024

pp. 2-3

He has been incarcerated since November 1, 2021

p. 3

While his criminal appeal (No. 525/2025) was pending, the petitioner applied for 14 days of leave on August 6, 2025, under the C.G. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989

p. 3

Although initially recommended by the competent authority, the District Magistrate (Respondent No. 3) rejected the application on September 23, 2025

p. 3

The rejection was based on objections from the deceased's family members, who expressed fear of a recurring incident if the petitioner were released

pp. 3-4

The petitioner challenged this rejection via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of leave/parole under the C.G. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, in light of adverse police reports and objections from the victim's family

pp. 3-4

ii.2. Whether the high rate of absconding prisoners in the state, as noted in concurrent public interest litigation, justifies the denial of parole

pp. 4-7

03Law Applied

Rule 5(C) of the C.G. Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, which governs the eligibility and conditions for granting leave to prisoners

p. 3

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

p. 2

WPPIL No. 33/2025 (Suo Moto PIL Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), specifically regarding the trend of prisoners failing to surrender after being released on bail or parole

pp. 4-5

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302

04Reasoning

The court evaluated the District Magistrate's order, noting that the primary ground for refusal was a legitimate apprehension of safety for the deceased's family

¶ 7

The court integrated findings from a pending Suo Moto PIL (WPPIL No. 33/2025), wherein the Director General of Police (DGP) filed an affidavit stating that 38 out of 40 prisoners released on parole remained at large

¶ 8

The court reasoned that the increasing frequency of prisoners absconding and failing to surrender post-parole, combined with the specific threat of recidivism or retaliation against the victim's family in this case, outweighed the petitioner's claim for leave

¶ 9-10

The court found that the District Magistrate had rightly exercised discretion based on the material available

¶ 5, 10

05Holding

The Court held that given the circumstances and the broader issue of absconding convicts in the state, it was not inclined to grant the petitioner leave

¶ 10

The writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the District Magistrate rejecting the parole application was upheld

¶ 11

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF