Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

1. Heard Mr. Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-

          "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 2.

          10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on temporary leave as early as possible for a period as prescribed under Chhattisgarh Prisoner Leave Rules 1989.

          10.3 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail, Ambikapur as Convicted Prisoner No.296/65 and is undergoing sentence pursuant to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2024 passed by the competent Court whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody since 21.02.2022 and has not been granted a single leave during his incarceration. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application seeking temporary leave under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. He would further submit that upon receipt of the application, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balrampur-Ramanujganj called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur-Ramanujganj. During enquiry, statements of the proposed sureties were recorded and the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jokapath also expressed no objection to the petitioner's temporary release. It is further submitted that statements of persons from the victim's side were also recorded, wherein no objection to the petitioner's temporary release was expressed. However, solely on the basis of the opinion furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Shankargarh, which was subsequently endorsed by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, the District Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application for leave by order dated 18.03.2026.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from complete non-application of mind. Learned counsel submits that the District Magistrate has merely reproduced the opinion of the police authorities without independently considering the material collected during enquiry. According to him, the object of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 is reformative and rehabilitative and, therefore, denial of temporary leave despite fulfillment of eligibility conditions amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and infringement of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner stands convicted for a grave and serious offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by judgment dated 12.02.2024. It is submitted that while considering the petitioner's application for leave, the competent authority obtained reports from the police authorities in accordance with the statutory procedure. He would further submit that the Station House Officer, Police Station Shankargarh specifically reported that the petitioner and the victim belong to the same village and that in the event of his release there exists a likelihood of disturbance of peace and tranquillity in the locality. The report further indicates apprehension of adverse consequences affecting public order. The Superintendent of Police, Balrampur-Ramanujganj concurred with the said opinion and accordingly did not recommend the petitioner's release.

6. It is contended by learned State counsel that apart from the present conviction, the petitioner was also prosecuted in another criminal case involving allegations of a similar nature. Though the petitioner was ultimately acquitted in the said case, such acquittal was not on a clear finding of innocence but by extending the benefit of doubt. According to learned State counsel, the competent authority was justified in considering the overall antecedents of the petitioner while assessing whether his temporary release would be consistent with public interest and societal welfare. It is further submitted that this Court in proceedings relating to WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has already expressed serious concern regarding instances where prisoners released on parole, furlough or temporary leave have misused such liberty, resulting in law and order concerns. Therefore, the competent authority rightly exercised caution while dealing with the petitioner's request.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the competent authority considered the material placed before it, including the report submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Shankargarh and the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur-Ramanujganj. The apprehension recorded in the report regarding disturbance of peace and public order cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant, particularly when the petitioner and the victim belong to the same village.

8. This Court also finds that the petitioner stands convicted for a serious offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was also involved in another prosecution relating to similar allegations, wherein he secured acquittal only by grant of benefit of doubt. The competent authority was, therefore, justified in taking into consideration the overall antecedents of the petitioner while evaluating his claim for temporary release. Further, in view of the concerns expressed by this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) regarding misuse of parole and temporary leave, the authority cannot be faulted for adopting a cautious approach.

9. Consequently, upon a comprehensive consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence for which the petitioner stands convicted, the adverse recommendation made by the police authorities regarding maintenance of public peace and order, as well as the petitioner's antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the competent authority has exercised its discretion on relevant considerations and in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balrampur- Ramanujganj cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any ground to substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority, particularly when the decision impugned is founded upon considerations relating to public order, societal interest and security concerns.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.