1 2026:CGHC:14997-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 175 of 2026 1 - Nitish Kumar Banjare S/o Omprakash Banjare Aged About 21 Years R/o Panchdevri, Police Station Kumhari, District- Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Jail Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District- Durg, C.G. 3 - District Magistrate Durg, District- Durg, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01/04/2026 1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P/4), VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.04 11:44:49 +0530 2 whereby his application for grant of parole has been rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner seeks quashment of the said order and further prays for a direction to the respondents to release him on temporary parole for a period of 15 days in order to attend the marriage of his younger sister. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner and release him on parole for 15 days. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby direct the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for purpose of attending his sister marriage. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned parole rejection order dated 17.12.2025. (Annexure-P/4). 10.5 That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 3. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable 3 under Sections 302 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg in Session Trial No. 180/2021. Against the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1524/2023 before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5228/2024, which was also dismissed on 19.04.2024. The petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2021 and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Durg. ******* It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied before the competent authority seeking grant of parole for a period of 15 days to attend the marriage of his younger sister scheduled on 26.03.2026; however, his application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner submits that this was his first application for parole, his conduct in jail has been satisfactory, and there are no other criminal antecedents against him. It is further submitted that the family members have undertaken to ensure his compliance with all conditions, yet the respondent authority has rejected his application without proper consideration, necessitating filing of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 whereby his application for grant of parole was rejected, and had sought release on temporary parole for a period of 15 days to attend the marriage of his younger sister. It is further submitted that 4 during the pendency of the present petition, the marriage of the petitioner’s younger sister, which was scheduled on 26.03.2026, has already been solemnized, and therefore, the present petition has now become infructuous so far as the relief seeking release of the petitioner on parole for attending the said marriage is concerned. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the competent authority has rightly rejected the application for grant of parole of the petitioner vide order dated 17.12.2025 after due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, and no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the said order warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that in view of the admitted position that the marriage of the petitioner’s younger sister has already been solemnized, the relief sought in the present petition does not survive and the petition has become infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed accordingly. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had sought grant of parole for a limited period of 15 days for the specific purpose of attending the marriage of his younger sister. It is not in dispute that the said marriage has already been solemnized during the 5 pendency of the present petition. In such circumstances, the primary relief sought by the petitioner no longer survives for consideration. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved