Dismissed¶32

Sukhnath Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jun 2026WPCR/296/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parole / temporary release rejection upheld — WPCR No. 296 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh (Ramesh Sinha, CJ; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.), decided 18.06.2026. Convict (Ss. 363, 366 IPC; S. 6 POCSO Act; judgment dt. 06.03.2023; Cr.A. 1276/2023 pending) challenged Collector & DM Jashpur's order dt. 20.02.2026 refusing first-time parole despite 5 yrs 11 mos 29 days served; objections by victim's family and Sarpanch via SHO report; Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 invoked; reliance on WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (parole absconding concerns); petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Upon hearing counsel and perusal of the record, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 rejecting the petitioner's parole application. ¶31

Sukhnath Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.02.2026 of respondent No. 2 rejecting the petitioner's application for release on parole — allegedly passed summarily without following the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 — suffers from non-application of mind and violation of statutory provisions and is liable to be quashed.

¶27

Court's answer

Upon hearing counsel and perusal of the record, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 rejecting the petitioner's parole application.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The rejection of the petitioner's application for temporary release was based on the nature and gravity of the offences for which he stands convicted as well as on the valid apprehension expressed by the victim's family regarding threat to their lives.

¶31

Key takeaways

In view of the circumstances — including this Court's earlier observations in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 that prisoners misusing the concession of parole have absconded, which bears directly on public order and safety — the competent authority was justified in exercising caution and rejecting the petitioner's request.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Criminal) dismissed — rejection of parole application upheld. The petitioner, convicted under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act by judgment dated 06.03.2023 (appeal Cr.A. No. 1276 of 2023 pending; suspension of sentence and bail refused), who had served 5 years 11 months and 29 days as on 14.11.2025 without ever being released on parole, challenged the Collector and District Magistrate, Jashpur's order dated 20.02.2026 rejecting his parole application, alleging non-application of mind and breach of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989. The Court (Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ) found no infirmity in the impugned order: the rejection rested on the nature and gravity of the offences and the valid apprehension expressed by the victim's family of threat to their lives, and was reinforced by the Court's earlier observations in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 that prisoners misusing parole had absconded, bearing on public order and safety; the authority was justified in exercising caution.

2026:CGHC:24611-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 296 of 2026

¶5

Sukhnath Nag Son of Kunwar Sai Aged About 30 Years Resident of Village-Gharjiyan Bathan, Bazarpara, Tahsil And Police Station - Patthalgaon, District -Jashpur (C.G.)

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

2 - The Collector and District Magistrate, District - Jashpur (C.G.)

¶10

3 - The Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail Ambikapur, District -Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

4 - The Superintendent of Jail Central Jail Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

5 - The Station House Officer Police Station, Pattalgaon, District - Jashpur (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

18. 06.2026

¶19

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶20

1. Heard Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State.

¶21

¶22

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :-

¶23

“i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 for fresh consideration of application of petitioner for release on parole in view of order passed by this Hon’ble High Court in similar matter bearing Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 8089/2022 “Santosh Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others” decided on 21.07.2023.

¶24

ii. That any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366 of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and after completion of trial, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under aforementioned offences by judgment dated 06.03.2023. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the petitioner has preferred an appeal bearing Cr.A. No. 1276 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court and the same is pending consideration and vide order dated 04.10.2023 this Hon'ble Court has rejected the application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail. He further submitted that as the petitioner has already completed 5 years 11 months & 29 days jail sentence as on 14.11.2025 and he has not

¶26

¶27

released single time on parole, he has applied for release on parole and vide letter dated 14.11.2025 the respondent no. 4 has forwarded the application of the petitioner to respondent no. 2 for appropriate action, who has directed the concerned Police Station i.e. respondent No.5 for submitting report and respondent No.5 has submitted report before the respondent No.2, mentioning therein that the family members of victim and Sarpanch of concerned Gram Panchayat have raised objection in releasing the petitioner on parole and in lieu of the said objection the respondent No.2 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 20.02.2026, summarily without following the mandate of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989. It is thus submitted that the order dated 20.02.2026 suffers from non-application of mind and violation of statutory provisions, and is liable to be quashed.

¶28

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that the petitioner stands convicted of heinous offences under Section 363, 366 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and his application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2023 in Cr.A. No. 1276 of 2023. He further submitted that the application for parole was considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jashpur, i.e. respondent No.2 and on the basis of recommendation of concerned Superintendent of Police, who specifically recorded the objection of the victim’s family that if the petitioner is released even temporarily, there is a grave apprehension of danger to their lives, has rejected the same vide order dated 20.02.2026. It is further pointed out that this Court in

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.02.2026. The rejection of the petitioner’s application for temporary release is based not only on the nature and gravity of the offences for which he stands convicted, but also on the valid apprehension expressed by the victim’s family regarding threat to their lives. 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.

¶32

6. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶33

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

¶34

Chandra

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 20.02.2026 of respondent No. 2 rejecting the petitioner's application for release on parole / temporary release, alleged to have been passed summarily without following the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989.¶27
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jashpur (respondent No. 2) · 20.02.2026
Prior proceeding
Trial and conviction: petitioner convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 6, POCSO Act, by judgment dated 06.03.2023.¶25
Prior proceeding
Appeal Cr.A. No. 1276 of 2023 preferred before this Court against the conviction; pending consideration.¶25
Prior proceeding
Application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail in the appeal rejected — petitioner's counsel cites order dated 04.10.2023 (para 25) while State counsel cites order dated 14.10.2023 (para 28); the judgment records no court finding resolving this discrepancy.¶28
Prior proceeding
Petitioner had completed 5 years 11 months & 29 days of jail sentence as on 14.11.2025 and had never previously been released on parole; he thereupon applied for release on parole.¶25
Prior proceeding
Vide letter dated 14.11.2025 respondent No. 4 (Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail Bilaspur) forwarded the parole application to respondent No. 2 (Collector) for appropriate action.¶27
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 5 (SHO, P.S. Pattalgaon) submitted a report to respondent No. 2 stating that the victim's family members and the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat objected to the petitioner's release on parole; on that objection the Collector rejected the application on 20.02.2026.¶27
Prior proceeding
Per State counsel: the parole application was considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jashpur on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police, who recorded the victim family's objection that the petitioner's temporary release posed a grave apprehension of danger to their lives.¶28

Sukhnath Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhnath Nag 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

In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnath Vs Bhagwani

Niranjan Sethiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh Vs Bheem Singh Dhruv