Neelkanth Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. Heard Ms. Gayatri Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.

¶23

2

¶24

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶25

“10.1 Issue a writ of certiorari and set aside memorandum dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

10.2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to release the petitioner for 16 days in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s leave Rule, 1889;

¶27

Pass any other order the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a convicted prisoner presently confined in Central Jail, Raipur, bearing Convict Prisoner No. 2026/08, and is undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment along with an additional sentence of six months in connection with Sessions Trial arising out of Crime No. 350/2013 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC. The petitioner has already undergone approximately 16 years of incarceration. His conviction has been upheld by the this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 430/2015 vide order dated 27.07.2023, and the Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed on 11.07.2024. It is submitted that throughout the entire period of custody, the petitioner’s conduct in jail has remained satisfactory and no adverse or serious jail misconduct has been reported against him, as reflected from the official jail record. It is further submitted that in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoners’

¶29

3

¶30

Leave Rules, 1989, the petitioner had applied for grant of parole vide application dated 18.07.2025 for the purpose of meeting his family members, furnishing all necessary particulars including place of stay, sureties, and an undertaking to comply with all conditions. The application was duly processed by the Jail Superintendent and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Raipur for consideration. However, despite being complete in all respects, the application remained pending for a considerable period and was ultimately rejected vide order dated 06.10.2025 solely on the basis of a police report objecting to parole on the ground that the petitioner is a life convict in a serious offence. It is submitted that such rejection is mechanical and contrary to law, as the gravity of the offence alone cannot be the sole ground to deny parole, particularly when the petitioner has already undergone substantial sentence, maintained good conduct, and satisfies all statutory requirements. The impugned order thus suffers from nonapplication of mind and deserves to be set aside.

¶31

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that that the petitioner is a convicted prisoner undergoing life imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC, arising out of a serious and grave criminal act. The conviction of the petitioner has been upheld by this Court and the challenge to the same has also been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby attaining finality. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioner cannot claim grant of parole as a matter of right. It is submitted that parole is a discretionary relief and is to be

¶32

4

¶33

granted only upon due satisfaction of the competent authority regarding the suitability of the prisoner for temporary release. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s application for parole was duly processed in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoners’ Leave Rules, 1989 and was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Raipur for appropriate consideration. During the course of such consideration, police verification reports were obtained from the concerned authorities, wherein objections were raised against the grant of parole to the petitioner on account of the serious nature of the offence and potential impact on public order and safety. The District Magistrate, after considering the material on record including the adverse police report, exercised his discretion and rejected the application vide order dated 06.10.2025. It is submitted that the said decision is based on relevant considerations and does not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality. It is further pointed out that this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 ( In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ) has already expressed its concern that several prisoners released on parole or short-term bail have absconded and have not returned to custody, thereby creating serious law and order issues. In light of such observations and considering the apprehension expressed by the victim’s family, the competent authority rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for parole, and no interference is warranted.

¶34

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner is a life convict for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC, and his

¶35

5

¶36

conviction has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of incarceration and that his jail conduct has been reported to be satisfactory. However, it is equally well settled that grant of parole is not a matter of right and is subject to the discretion of the competent authority, to be exercised on the basis of relevant considerations including the nature of the offence, the impact on society, and the report of the local police authorities. Furthermore, this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 has already observed the tendency of prisoners misusing the concession of parole and absconding, which has a direct bearing on public order and safety. In view of these circumstances, the authority was justified in exercising caution and rejecting the petitioner’s request.

¶37

6. In the present case, the petitioner’s application for parole was duly considered by the competent authority, and upon obtaining police verification, objections were raised primarily on account of the gravity of the offence and concerns relating to public order and safety. The District Magistrate, Raipur, after taking into account the material placed before him, rejected the application vide order dated 06.10.2025. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or arbitrariness in the decisionmaking process so as to warrant interference under its writ jurisdiction.

¶38

7. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed .

¶39

Sd/-	Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)	(Ramesh Sinha)
Judge	Chief Justice

¶40

Chandra

Neelkanth Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelkanth Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akansha Lal Vs Jyothsna George

Siddique Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hetram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pramod Dansena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Rajput Vs Smt. Gulapa Bai Rajput