Dismissed¶43

Vijay Madhav Bajpai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2026WPCR/327/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parole / ordinary leave rejection upheld; Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989; Article 226 writ petition; certiorari and mandamus refused; District Magistrate Bilaspur order dated 27.03.2026; communication dated 30.03.2026; recommendation of Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur; SHO report; victim side objection; proposed surety did not turn up; convict undergone more than one-fourth of sentence including remission; Central Jail Bilaspur; absconding parolees; WPPIL No. 33/2025 Suo Moto PIL; DGP affidavit; no illegality or infirmity; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed. ¶43

Vijay Madhav Bajpai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the District Magistrate, Bilaspur's order dated 27.03.2026 (and communication dated 30.03.2026) rejecting the petitioner's application for 14+2 days of ordinary leave (parole), and a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to grant such leave, deserves to be allowed.

¶20

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted and is undergoing jail sentence, and considering that respondent No.2, District Magistrate Bilaspur, rejected the leave (parole) application in view of the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, the report of the concerned SHO and the objection raised by the victim side, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 and its communication dated 30.03.2026.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶43

Key takeaways

The Court took notice of the increasing number of absconding accused persons who, having been released on parole or bail, do not surrender after completion of their period of parole.obiter¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge (order per the Chief Justice), dismissed WPCR No. 327 of 2026 decided on 02-07-2026. A convicted prisoner of Central Jail, Bilaspur, who had undergone 06 years and 21 days of sentence including remission (more than one-fourth of his total sentence), filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari against the District Magistrate, Bilaspur's order dated 27.03.2026 (communicated 30.03.2026) rejecting his application for 14+2 days of ordinary leave (parole) under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989, and mandamus to grant the leave. The rejection rested on the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, the report of the concerned SHO, objection from the victim side, and the non-appearance of one proposed surety. Holding that the rejection was based on relevant considerations, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It also noted the pendency of WPPIL No. 33/2025, in which the DGP's affidavit disclosed 40 prisoners released on parole absconding without surrender (only 2 arrested as on 02/12/2025), and the increasing trend of accused released on parole/bail failing to surrender. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed byMOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.07.03 11:31:34 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

2026:CGHC:27038-DB

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPCR No. 327 of 2026

¶7

1 - Vijay Madhav Bajpai S/o Late Achal Madhav, Aged About 39 Years, Occupation Convicted Prisoner (No.1148/123) Resident of Village and Post Pali, Police Station Takhatpur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Home (Jail), Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Aftabun Nisha, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02-07-2026

¶17

Heard Ms. Aftabun Nisha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents.

¶18

¶19

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1 Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Impugned Order dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) and the communication dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-4).

¶21

10.2 Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to grant 14+2 days of ordinary leave to the Petitioner as per his application (Annexure P-1).

¶22

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted in favour of petitioner in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner is presently undergoing jail sentence in Central Jail, Bilaspur. The petitioner has undergone a total sentence of 06 years and 21 days (including a trial detention period of 01 year, 11 months, and 05 days and a remission of 10 months and 09 days), i.e., more than one fourth of his total sentence (including remission). It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is arbitrary and contrary to law, as it has been passed without independent application of mind and merely relies upon the police report while ignoring the favourable recommendation of the Jail Superintendent and the Petitioner's satisfactory conduct in jail. The leave application has been rejected only because of the nature of the offence, without considering the Petitioner's good

¶24

¶25

behaviour, rehabilitation, or whether his temporary release would actually pose any threat to public order. The impugned order does not mention any specific material or evidence showing that the Petitioner's release would endanger society or the victim, and is based only on a general apprehension. Since the Petitioner has maintained good conduct throughout his imprisonment, the rejection of his leave application is unfair, unreasonable, and against the object of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989, and therefore deserves to be set aside and it is prayed that the petitioner’s parole application may be allowed.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner’s application for grant of leave (parole) has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.03.2026 on the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and on the basis of the report submitted by the concerned SHO. There is objection from the victim side in release of the petitioner on parole. It has been also reported that one of proposed surety of the petitioner did not turn up to make any statement.

¶27

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents annexed.

¶28

From perusal of the order impugned, it transpires that there was an objection raised by the victim/complainant side and the respondent No.2 has considered the recommendation of Senior

¶29

¶30

Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur (C.G.) as well as the report of the concerned SHO while rejecting the application of the petitioner.

¶31

Apart from the consideration of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, we noticed the issue involved in WPPIL No. 33/2025 (In the matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), which is pending before this Court. In the said WPPIL No. 33/2025, on being direction made by this Court, the Director General of Police, PHQ, Chhattisgarh, filed his affidavit informing the fact about number of absconding accused persons who have been released on bail. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant part of the affidavit of the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which has been observed in the order dated 08.12.2025 in the WPPIL No. 33/2025, which reads as under:-

¶32

"4. That, the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits that in order to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Court, the deponent has immediately acted upon the letter of the office of the Advocate General dated 17/10/2025 and in continuation of the same, on 22/10/2025 necessary instructions and directions have immediately been issued to all the Range Inspector General of Polices including the Rail to ensure arrest and entry of 40 prisoners who are still absconding, into the jail by carrying out a special drive in this regard and

¶33

¶34

submit a report about the efforts made for arrest of the accused persons by the concerned Police by 02/12/2025 by enclosing the list of 40 absconding prisoners, who were released on parole, but, have not surrendered and are still absconding so that the order of the Hon'ble Court can be complied with by submitting the information in this regard. To demonstrate this fact, copy of the letter dated 22/10/2025 is filed herewith as Annexure A/3.

¶35

on That, the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits that taking cognizance of poor performance / efforts / progress in arresting the absconding prisoners, 29/10/2025 a DO letter dated 29/10/2025 has personally been written to all the Range Inspector General of Polices, Chhattisgarh to carry out a special drive for arresting the remaining absconded accused and further ensure their entry into the jail after their arrest by preparing a working plan in this regard under the supervision of concerned District Superintendent of Polices. To demonstrate this fact, copies of the DO letters dated 29/10/2025 are filed herewith as Annexure A/4 colly.

¶36

That, the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits that as per the information received from 5 Circle Jails of the State, as on 02/12/2025, 2 absconded prisoners of Circle Jail Ambikapur and Circle Jail

¶37

¶38

Jagdalpur have been arrested out of total40 prisoners and remaining is 38 in number. To demonstrate this fact, copy of the chart showing arrest of 2 absconded prisoners out of 40 prisoners is being filed herewith as Annexure A/5.

¶39

That, the deponent respectfully submits that the Police Personnel have made their all sincere and best efforts to arrest the aforesaid 40 absconded prisoners / accused and as a result of which the Police has succeeded in arresting 2 absconded prisoners. It is respectfully submitted that to arrest the remaining 38 absconding prisoners, the continuous efforts are being made by the concerned Police Officials and as soon as the said accused persons are arrested, they would be produced before the concerned learned Trial Court from where they will be sent to the Jail. That, the deponent most respectfully submits that he has the highest regard and respect for the lawful authority of this Hon'ble Court as well as its orders and directions issued from time to time and is duty bound to adhere to and abide by the orders.”

¶40

This Court also noticed the increasing number of absconding accused persons who have been either released on parole or bail that once they have been released on bail/parol, they are not surrendering after completion of their period of parole.

¶41

¶42

9 . Considering the nature of offence for which the petitioner has been been convicted and is undergoing jail sentence, further considering that respondent No. 2, District Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) has rejected the application of the petitioner for leave (parole) in view of the recommendation made by Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and report of the concerned SHO as well as objection raised by the victim side, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 27.03.2026 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of leave (parole) and its communication dated 30.03.2026.

¶43

10. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶44

Sd/Sd/-

¶45

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶46

Aadil

Vijay Madhav Bajpai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Madhav Bajpai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sandhya Kumari Vs Aman Kumar Singh

Amit Kumar @ Jeetu Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Balakrishna Verma Alias Chotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Salim Sheikh

Champa Mourya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Office Reference Vs Shri Firoj Khan