Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Roshan @ Vikkey Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Chhattisgarh HC
2026
Roshan @ Vikkey Patel Vs State of ChhattisgarhRoshan @ Vikkey Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Dismissed¶32

Roshan @ Vikkey Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Writ (Criminal) – Release on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989

Chhattisgarh HC26 Jul 2026WPCR/412/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, W.P(Cr.) No.412 of 2026, decided 27.07.2026 by Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge (neutral citation 2026:CGHC:31880-DB). Petitioner Roshan @ Vikkey Patel, inmate (Central Jail Durg), sought quashing of the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon's memo dated 20.03.2026 rejecting parole and a direction for release on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989, claiming completion of the minimum imprisonment period. Parole was declined due to refusal of the proposed surety; petitioner conceded inability to furnish sureties. Petition dismissed; liberty to file fresh application before the competent authority upon arranging sureties. Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (Home/Jail), Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, DM/ADM Rajnandgaon, SP Rajnandgaon, SHO Dongargaon. No precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; liberty reserved to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing a fresh application for parole if and when he is able to arrange the requisite sureties.

Why is it important?

The Division Bench declined to entertain the writ petition: the Petitioner's parole request had been declined because the proposed surety refused to stand as surety, and learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submitted that the Petitioner is presently unable to furnish the requisite sureties; accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. ¶32

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; liberty reserved to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing a fresh application for parole if and when he is able to arrange the requisite sureties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, claiming to have completed the minimum period of imprisonment prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989, is entitled to be released on parole despite the impugned rejection dated 20.03.2026 and his inability to furnish requisite sureties. +1 more

Court's answer

The Division Bench declined to entertain the writ petition: the Petitioner's parole request had been declined because the proposed surety refused to stand as surety, and learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submitted that the Petitioner is presently unable to furnish the requisite sureties; accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing a fresh application for release on parole if and when he is able to arrange the requisite sureties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ (Criminal) — Release on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989 — Petitioner, claiming to have completed the minimum period of imprisonment, challenged the memo dated 20.03.2026 of the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (Annexure P-1) rejecting his parole application — Parole had been declined as the proposed surety refused to stand as surety and the authorities recommended against release; counsel conceded the petitioner was presently unable to furnish requisite sureties — Writ petition dismissed, with liberty to approach the competent authority afresh by a fresh application once the requisite sureties are arranged.

A

1

CGHC010268152026

2026:CGHC:31880-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

W.P(Cr.) No.412 of 2026

Roshan @ Vikkey Patel S/o Shri Dhanna Lal Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Mathaldabri, P.S. Dongargaon, DistrictRajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (He Has Preferred Instant Writ Petition Through Legal Aid Committee) ... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its, Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (CG)

2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District- Durg (CG)

3 - The District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate, DistrictRajnandgaon (CG)

4 - The Superintendent Of Police Rajnandgaon DistrictRajnandgaon (CG)

SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.28 11:06:23 +0530

5 - Station House Officer Police Station Dongargaon, DistrictRajnandgaon (CG) ... Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. CK Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

27.07.2026

Heard Mr. CK Sahu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/Respondents.

The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner for the following reliefs:-

“10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioner's leave case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court.

10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989.

10.3 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner

has completed the minimum period of imprisonment prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989 and is, therefore, entitled to be released on parole. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 20.03.2026 passed by Respondent No.3-District Magistrate, District Rajnandgaon rejecting the Petitioner's claim for parole is arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made by the

3

learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Petitioner's request for grant of parole has been declined as the proposed surety refused to stand as surety for the Petitioner and consequently, the concerned authorities recommended that the Petitioner be not released on parole. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the Petitioner is presently unable to furnish the requisite sureties for his release on parole.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing a fresh application, if and when he is able to arrange the requisite sureties for his release on parole.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Priya

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Petitioner, claiming to have completed the minimum period of imprisonment prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989, is entitled to be released on parole despite the impugned rejection dated 20.03.2026 and his inability to furnish requisite sureties.medium confidence¶26
The court held
The Division Bench declined to entertain the writ petition: the Petitioner's parole request had been declined because the proposed surety refused to stand as surety, and learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submitted that the Petitioner is presently unable to furnish the requisite sureties; accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.ratio¶32
2.
Whether the impugned memo dated 20.03.2026 rejecting the Petitioner's parole claim is arbitrary and liable to be quashed.medium confidence¶26

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989¶23 Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989¶26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Memo dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) of Respondent No.3, District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate, District Rajnandgaon, rejecting the Petitioner's claim for release on parole.¶26
District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate, District Rajnandgaon (Respondent No.3) · 20.03.2026
Prior proceeding
Petitioner, preferring the writ petition through the Legal Aid Committee, sought (i) calling of records pertaining to his leave case, (ii) quashing of the impugned memo dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) and a direction to release him on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989, and (iii) any other fit relief.¶23
Prior proceeding
On perusal of the impugned order, the parole request had been declined because the proposed surety refused to stand as surety and the concerned authorities recommended against release; during hearing, counsel for the Petitioner conceded the Petitioner is presently unable to furnish the requisite sureties.¶31

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Roshan @ Vikkey Patel S/o Shri Dhanna Lal Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Mathaldabri, P.S. Dongargaon, DistrictRajnandgaon Chhattisgarh¶7
Mr. CK Sahu
respondent
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its, Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (CG)¶9
Mr. Soumya Rai
respondent
The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Durg, District- Durg (CG)¶10
Mr. Soumya Rai
respondent
The District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate, DistrictRajnandgaon (CG)¶11
Mr. Soumya Rai
respondent
The Superintendent Of Police Rajnandgaon DistrictRajnandgaon (CG)¶12
Mr. Soumya Rai
respondent
Station House Officer Police Station Dongargaon, DistrictRajnandgaon (CG)¶15
Mr. Soumya Rai

Coram

AI extract

Ramesh Sinhamember¶18
Ravindra Kumar Agrawalmember¶18

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Chhattisgarh HC
Decided on: 26 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 21 Jul 2026
Case no.: WPCR/412/2026
CNR: CGHC010268152026
Bench: Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.P(Cr.)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Sanju Chakravarty @ Bangali Vs State of Chhattisgarh
23 Jul 2026
Naveen Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh
23 Jul 2026
Mukesh Kushwaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh
23 Jul 2026
Kundan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh
26 Jul 2026
Pawan Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh
26 Jul 2026
Ejaz Czar Vs State of Chhattisgarh
26 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Roshan @ Vikkey Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPCR/412/2026 (CG), decided on 26 July 2026.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989 · Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Memo dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) of Respondent No.3, District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate, District Rajnandgaon, rejecting the Petitioner's claim for release on parole.District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate, District Rajnandgaon (Respondent No.3) · 20.03.2026
Petitioner, preferring the writ petition through the Legal Aid Committee, sought (i) calling of records pertaining to his leave case, (ii) quashing of the impugned memo dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) and a direction to release him on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989, and (iii) any other fit relief.
On perusal of the impugned order, the parole request had been declined because the proposed surety refused to stand as surety and the concerned authorities recommended against release; during hearing, counsel for the Petitioner conceded the Petitioner is presently unable to furnish the requisite sureties.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Parties & counsel