MANPREET v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home

: Mr. Shrestha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board

29.10.2025

Heard Mr. Shrestha Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent / State.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the 2 following prayers: “10.1That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondent authorities to to grant parole for 30 to 40 days to the petitioner on humanitarian, medical, compassionate grounds.

10.2 Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

10.3 Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 09.08.2023 and has completed over two years of incarceration. It is submitted that the petitioner is suffering from multiple orthopedic ailments, including serious complications in his leg and hip where metal rods have been implanted, resulting in severe pain, restricted mobility, and difficulty in breathing, as supported by the medical reports annexed. The rejection of his parole applications is arbitrary, non-speaking, and overlooks the exceptional medical circumstances of the petitioner, which fall within the compassionate grounds protected under Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to health and life. It is further submitted that the petitioner had preferred parole on medical grounds on three occasions dated

12.08.2025, 06.03.2025, and 11.09.2024 but each was rejected by the respondent authorities vide orders dated 22.08.2025, 21.03.2025, and 3

19.09.2024 respectively, despite endorsements by competent officials. Such repeated denial of parole despite medical urgency is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of constitutional mandates. Considering that the petitioner only seeks temporary leave for a limited period of 30 to 40 days solely for medical treatment and family respite, and that the parole policy itself provides for compassion-based exceptions in cases of medical emergency, the denial of parole is unjustified and deserves to be set aside.

It is further submitted that as per Rule 4 of the said Rules, the only conditions to be satisfied for grant of leave are that it should not be against public interest and that the prisoner has not committed any jail offence. The petitioner fulfills all these conditions, having completed the minimum qualifying period of imprisonment (including remission), and no disqualification exists against him. The grant of leave serves a reformatory and rehabilitative purpose, allowing convicts to maintain social ties and reintegrate with society. The denial of leave to the petitioner, despite clear eligibility, is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the object of the Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that the petitioner stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(f) of the NDPS Act. The application for temporary release was considered by the District Magistrate Raipur, District- Raipur on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, who 4 specifically recorded the that releasing the prisoner on leave is likely to harm public peace and public interest. 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, the competent authority rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for parole, and no interference is warranted.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated

22.08.2025. 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 threat to public peace and interest. 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.

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet