Madanlal Surge Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. Heard Ms. Pooja Loniya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

¶18

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶19

2

¶20

reliefs:-

¶21

“I. Call for the entire record pertaining to Criminal Case No.

¶22

ii. 61/2025 from the office of learned District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.); Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) rejecting the application for grant of leave/parole; ii. Direct the respondents to grant leave/parole to the petitioner for a period of 14 days or for such period as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper;

¶23

iii. Pass any other order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 61/2025, whereby the petitioner’s application seeking grant of temporary leave/parole for a period of 14 days was rejected. It is submitted that the petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur pursuant to the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st FTSC, Bilaspur in connection with offences under Sections 377 and 201 of the IPC and Sections 5(m)/6 and 5(n)/6 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had applied for parole through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur to enable him to meet his family members, and after

¶25

3

¶26

verifying his conduct and eligibility, the jail authorities forwarded a favourable recommendation certifying that he was entitled to leave under the applicable Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. However, despite such recommendation, the learned District Magistrate rejected the application solely on the basis of a police report expressing apprehension of law and order issues, without assigning any cogent reasons or independently considering the material on record. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, non-speaking, contrary to law and the applicable Prisoners Leave Rules, and is liable to be quashed.

¶27

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and supports the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Bilaspur. It is submitted that the petitioner’s application for grant of temporary leave/parole was considered in accordance with the applicable rules and was rightly rejected on the basis of the adverse report submitted by the police authorities indicating that the petitioner’s release was likely to create disturbance to public peace and law and order. It is further submitted that the District Magistrate has exercised the statutory discretion vested in him after considering the relevant material, and therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶28

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

4

¶30

6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 reveals that the petitioner’s application for grant of temporary leave/parole for a period of 14 days has been rejected primarily on the basis of the adverse reports submitted by the concerned police authorities, wherein it has been apprehended that the release of the petitioner may give rise to disturbance of public peace and law and order. Though the Jail Superintendent recommended the petitioner’s case by certifying his eligibility under the applicable Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, the competent authority, after considering the overall material placed before it, declined to grant parole in view of the adverse police report.

¶31

7. Considering the recommendation made by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur regarding the petitioner’s eligibility, as well as the adverse report submitted by the police authorities expressing serious apprehension that the petitioner’s release may adversely affect public peace and law and order, this Court is of the considered view that the learned District Magistrate has exercised the discretion vested in him on the basis of relevant material and in accordance with the applicable Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. Merely because the petitioner was found eligible for consideration does not confer an indefeasible right to be released on parole. The competent authority is duty-bound to consider the larger interest of society and maintenance of public order, and the apprehensions recorded by the police authorities cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous.

¶32

5

¶33

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶34

9. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, for seeking expeditious consideration of the application for suspension of sentence pending in the criminal appeal or to avail such other remedy as may be available in law.

¶35

Sd/Sd/(Ravindra kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶36

Manpreet

Madanlal Surge v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madanlal Surge 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramphal Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jainendra Lahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Kumar Kannoje Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pramod Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shubham Sitlani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manju Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh