GHASI RAM DHURI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — WPCR/260/2026

Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010171852026

Filing Number

WPCR/9936/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

WPCR/260/2026

Registration Date

05-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES ( 1440 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GHASI RAM DHURI

    Adv. SEEMA MISHRA,MEGHA MISHRA,MEGHA MISHRA, ,PRAVESH SAHU,MEGHA MISHRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  2. 2.The Director General

  3. 3.The Jail Superintendent

  4. 4.The District Magistrate

  5. 5.The Superintendent of Police

  6. 6.Station house Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Ghasi Ram Dhuri's petition challenging the District Magistrate's rejection of his parole application. The petitioner, convicted under IPC Section 376(3) and POCSO Act for a 20-year sentence, argued the rejection violated statutory procedures, but the court upheld the denial based on the heinous nature of the offense, the victim's family's safety concerns, and observed tendencies of parolees absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPCR/260/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Ghasi Ram Dhuri's petition challenging the District Magistrate's rejection of his parole application. The petitioner, convicted under IPC Section 376(3) and POCSO Act for a 20-year sentence, argued the rejection violated statutory procedures, but the court upheld the denial based on the heinous nature of the offense, the victim's family's safety concerns, and observed tendencies of parolees absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case