The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirmed that, especially for convicts of grave offences such as murder, the competent authority may lawfully deny temporary leave based on adverse police reports and objections from the victim’s family. The decision upholds existing precedent, reinforcing the discretionary powers of authorities under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. It serves as binding authority within Chhattisgarh judicial hierarchy and provides persuasive value for similar situations in other jurisdictions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCR/551/2025 of DEVLAL SINGH Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010439902025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent; follows relevant prior cases |
| Type of Law | Criminal/Prison Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether temporary leave to a life convict under Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 can be denied solely on basis of adverse police report and objections of the victim’s family. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that, where adverse police reports and victim’s family objections exist—particularly in cases involving grave offences such as murder—authorities are justified in exercising caution and refusing temporary leave, even if there are no objections from villagers or local administration. The Court emphasized that temporary leave or parole is not a matter of right but subject to satisfaction of the competent authority, who must consider public order, safety, and potential for breach of peace. Prior observations regarding misuse of parole and law-and-order concerns were also considered. The decision upholds that denial based on such grounds does not violate constitutional rights where public interest is at stake. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | W.P.(Cr.) No. 29/2016; W.P.(Cr.) No. 182/2015 (Santhram Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh); WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, and previous judicial observations regarding misuse of parole and public order concerns. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, convicted under Sections 302 and 326 IPC, has served 12 years of life imprisonment without any grant of leave. His application for leave was rejected by the District Magistrate solely on the basis of adverse police report and objection by the victim’s family, despite no village objection and favorable statements by Gram Panchayat and Jamanatdars. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly the Supreme Court when considering similar provisions/grounds under Prisoners Leave/Parole Rules |
| Follows | W.P.(Cr.) No. 29/2016; W.P.(Cr.) No. 182/2015 (Santhram Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh); WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court has re-affirmed that adverse police reports and specific victim’s family objections can be a sufficient ground to deny temporary leave or parole, especially in grave offences.
- The satisfaction of the competent authority under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, remains discretionary and is not mandatory to be overridden by favorable reports from other quarters like the villagers or Gram Panchayat.
- Denial of leave in such circumstances is not considered unconstitutional under Articles 14 or 21, provided public safety and order are at risk.
- Previous concerns and judicial observations regarding misuse of parole and the impact on law and order are valid considerations in refusing such requests.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether the competent authority’s reliance on an adverse police report and objection from the victim’s family—without considering favors from villagers or Gram Panchayat—constitutes a valid exercise of discretion under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.
- It noted the object and scheme of the Rules, stressing the requirement for the authority to be satisfied regarding public interest, law and order, and the risk of breach of peace.
- The Court observed that the victim’s family had expressed genuine safety concerns and the local police, up to the Superintendent level, had strongly objected to the prisoner’s release.
- Previous judicial observations in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 about the dangers of prisoners absconding and causing public disorder when on parole/leave were given weight.
- The Court concluded that, in cases involving serious offences (like murder), public interest and security outweigh an individual prisoner’s claim to temporary leave, even when village or panchayat support exists.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner has not been granted any leave in 12 years despite good conduct, which violates his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Application was rejected solely on adverse police report and victim family’s objection, without considering favorable opinions from Jamanatdars, Gram Panchayat, and villagers.
- Denial amounts to arbitrary and mechanical exercise of power; does not align with the object of Prisoner Leave Rules.
- Cited earlier judgments (W.P.(Cr.) No. 29/2016, W.P.(Cr.) No. 182/2015) to stress that police recommendation is not conclusive.
Respondent (State)
- Application was properly rejected in accordance with proper procedure and based on serious objections from police and the victim’s family.
- Conviction is for murder (Sections 302 and 326 IPC); release poses a potential threat to law and order.
- Parole or temporary leave is not a right, but subject to satisfaction of the competent authority.
- Court’s prior observations highlight dangers when parole is misused, as in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025.
Factual Background
The case concerns a prisoner serving life imprisonment for offences under Sections 302 and 326 IPC, who has completed 12 years in jail without being granted temporary leave. The petitioner’s request for leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, was rejected by the District Magistrate on the basis of adverse police report and the objection by the family of the victim, despite positive recommendations from village representatives. The core challenge was the alleged mechanical rejection without independent consideration.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, particularly Rules 4 and 6 regarding eligibility and the process for granting temporary leave.
- The Rules confer discretion on the competent authority, which is to be exercised by considering the conduct of the prisoner, public interest, potential disturbance to public order, and security issues.
- The Court applied a balanced reading, affirming the discretionary authority while requiring that all relevant factors, particularly risks to public order and safety, be duly considered.
- No constitutional provision was interpreted beyond reference to Articles 14 and 21 in the context of rights of prisoners.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies existing precedent regarding the discretionary power of authorities under Prisoners Leave Rules and public safety considerations.