Chattisgarh High Court
Anand Kumar Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10945-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 128 of 2026
1 - Anand Kumar Kashyap S/o Shyam Lal Kashyap, Aged About 31
Years, Thorugh His Father Shyam Lal Kashyap S/o Adhaar Kashyap
A/o 57 Years, R/o Village- Nawapara Kanai, Post Sukli, Police Station
Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Principal Secretary, Department
of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - The District Magistrate District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
4 - The Superintendent of Police District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.03.2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.03.03 19:41:52 +0530
1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing 2 for the State/respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):-
"10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioners leave case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court.
10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 12.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989.
10.3 That The petitioner wishes to obtain 14 days leave to visit his family. He has a two year old daugher, whose aadhaar Card has been submitted with this petition, who also misses him greatly. 10.4 To grant any others relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently in Central Jail Bilaspur as prisoner No.2883/141. He is in jail since 10.09.2023 serving sentence of imprisonment under the provisions of the IPC and N.D.P.S. Act as the sessions trial culminated in his conviction. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.3 summarily without following the relevant provisions of Rule 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 (in short 'the Rule, 1989') as well as Rules 6, 9, 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1989, 3 therefore, the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 12.01.2026 is liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. He further submits that against his conviction and sentence the petitioner has already filed criminal appeal before this Court which is pending for its consideration.
4. 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.3 vide order dated 12.01.2026 on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents annexed.
6. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa has expressed opinion that in view of the memo sent by concerned police station in- charge through authority concerned where objection has been raised on releasing the petitioner on parole/leave, no recommendation is made for temporary leave (parole) in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent No.3, the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa agreeing with the report has rejected the leave application of the petitioner.
7. Considering the nature of offence for which the petitioner has been been convicted and is undergoing jail sentence, further considering that the appeal against his conviction and sentence is 4 pending and the District Magistrate, District Janjgir-Champa has rejected the application of the petitioner for leave (parole) on the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 12.01.2026 passed by respondent No.3 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of leave (parole).
8. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil