1 2026:CGHC:25306-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 323 of 2026 1 - Smt. Prabha Diwakar W/o- Munna @ Rajkumar Aged About 52 Years R/o- Village Fulwarikala, Police Station Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) Petitioner Is In Jail Therefore File Instant Writ Petition (Criminal) Through Shanta Bai Prabhakar 2 - Munna @ Rajkumar, S/o- Late Chaituram Diwakar, Aged About 56 Years R/o- Village Fulwarikala, Police Station Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) Petitioner Is In Jail Therefore File Instant Writ Petition (Criminal) Through Shanta Bai Prabhakar 3 - Deepak Diwakar, S/o- Munna @ Rajkumar Aged About 33 Years R/o- Village Fulwarikala, Police Station Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) Petitioner Is In Jail Therefore File Instant Writ Petition (Criminal) Through Shanta Bai Prabhakar. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jail Superintedent Central Jail Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station- Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.06.23 10:28:19 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following relief:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant parole for period of 3 months. 10.2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The instant writ petition has been filed through deponent- Shanta Bai Prabhakar on behalf of petitioners No.1 to 3 seeking release of petitioners on parole for a period of 20 days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 - Smt. Prabha Diwakar, wife of petitioner No.2, is suffering from cancer and requires continuous treatment. It is submitted that petitioner No.2 is required to look after petitioner No.1 and to provide necessary assistance for her treatment and, therefore, he may be released on parole for the aforesaid period. 3 5. This Court has considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners and perused the application dated 09.05.2026, filed by deponent before Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur. 6. From the averments made in the application (Annexure P/5 of the petition), it is evident that the ground urged for grant of parole is the illness of petitioner No.1 - Smt. Prabha Diwakar. However, it is equally apparent from the cause title of the petition itself that petitioner No.1 is also a convicted prisoner lodged in jail. Thus, while the alleged ailment is that of petitioner No.1, no relief concerning her release or treatment has been sought. Rather, the prayer is for release of petitioner No.2 on parole. 7. The application or the petition does not explain as to how release of petitioner No.2 would facilitate the treatment of petitioner No.1 when she herself continues to remain in custody. No factual foundation has been laid showing any nexus between the relief sought and the purpose sought to be achieved. If petitioner No.1 is undergoing treatment while in custody, release of petitioner No.2 by itself would not advance the stated object. On the other hand, if the grievance pertains to availability of medical treatment to petitioner No.1, the appropriate relief would have been in relation to her medical care and treatment. 8. The relief sought and the grounds urged in support thereof, therefore, do not appear to have any rational or direct correlation. The very basis on which parole is sought for petitioner No.2 fails to disclose any circumstance warranting interference by this Court 4 in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition after taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh before the appropriate authority. 11. Certified copy of the documents annexed in the petition, if any, may be returned back to the counsel for the petitioner after obtaining the photocopy of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet