Parole may be denied where release poses a genuine risk to public safety or victim security.

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 366 and 376(d) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

His conviction was subsequently affirmed by the High Court in CRA No. 539 of 2023.

The petitioner, through his sister, filed an application for 14 days of temporary leave (parole) under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner Leave Rules, 1989.

On 15.07.2025, the District Magistrate (DM) of Jashpur rejected the application based on an adverse report from the Superintendent of Police (SP) and objections from the Village Sarpanch.

The reports indicated that the petitioner’s release posed a threat to the victim and her family, especially if he associated with acquitted co-accused, and that untoward incidents were likely.

The petitioner challenged this rejection through the present writ petition.

1. Whether the District Magistrate’s order rejecting the parole application was legally sustainable under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner Leave Rules, 1989.

2. Whether the potential risk to public safety and the systemic issue of absconding prisoners justify the denial of parole to a convict of a heinous crime.

The Court applied the Chhattisgarh Prisoner Leave Rules, 1989, specifically Rules 4, 6, 9, 11, and 12, which govern the procedure and eligibility for prisoner leave.

It adhered to the legal principle that while parole is a mechanism for rehabilitation, it is subject to the condition that it does not pose a genuine risk to public safety.

Furthermore, the Court took judicial notice of the findings in WPPIL No. 33/2025 (Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Others) regarding the high rate of absconding prisoners who fail to surrender after being released on parole or bail.

The Court examined the DM's order and found it was primarily based on the SP's recommendation, which highlighted a substantial threat to the victim and the potential for a breach of societal peace.

The Court reasoned that although parole serves rehabilitative purposes, the "heinous" nature of the offense (gang rape) necessitated a stricter evaluation of public safety risks.

Significantly, the Court integrated a broader systemic concern: data submitted by the Director General of Police in an ongoing Suo Moto PIL (WPPIL No. 33/2025) revealed that 38 out of 40 prisoners released on parole remained at large and had failed to surrender.

Considering the petitioner's specific conduct, the local opposition, and the rising trend of convicts absconding while on leave, the Court determined there was no "good reason" to interfere with the DM’s discretionary refusal.

The Court affirmed that the DM's decision was justified under the facts and circumstances.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the prayer for temporary leave was denied.