Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner (‘convict’) under Article 226 of Constitution for release on parole for four weeks in FIR under Section 3021/376(2)(f)2 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), wherein he is undergoing the life sentence and had already spent more than 20 years in jail, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., stated that merely because he was confined to jail, the Court stated that it did not reduce his status to that of a chattel, bereft of any basic fundamental human rights. It was high time that the Jail Authorities demonstrated a little more sensitivity in dealing with such matters. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court released the convict on parole for a period of four weeks.
Background
In the present case, the convict had applied for grant on parole on 26-11-2024, despite which his application was not decided. The convict had sought the copy of his parole application from the authority for annexing along with the petition, but his request was rejected. Thus, he filed the present petition praying to be released on parole for four weeks.
It was further submitted that the parole/furlough was availed many a times by the convict, and he had never misused the liberty granted except during the Emergency Parole in COVID-19 period wherein he surrendered late.
It was further submitted that the convict’s family comprises of his wife, who was working from home as a tailor and he had two daughters and two sons, who were all minor and school going. He belonged to poor strata of the society. Therefore, a prayer was made for grant of parole for a period of four weeks.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the application for parole being filed in November 2024 and it did not get decided within the mandated one-month period but it took a writ petition and a notice by this Court for the Jail Authorities, to decide a petition and that too in the most arbitrary way, only because of this present writ petition.
The Court stated that the first ground of rejection was the late surrender of the convict after the Emergency Parole. However, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its Order dated 29-01-2024 considered this ground and observed that the circumstances and family exigencies, could not be overlooked while considering the application. The Court stated that once, the Court had specifically observed that this was not a valid ground for denying parole, the insistence to persist in making this as a ground of rejection of parole every time compelling the convict to come to the Court, was neither warranted nor appreciated. The Jail administration must be conscious and aware of the orders being made by the Court and follow them scrupulously.
The Court observed that the second ground which was given regarding convict’s conduct, that it was not satisfactory. However, the nominal roll did not show any new unsatisfactory conduct. Further, the Court noted that the convict had attempted suicide on 8-9-2022. The Court stated that the Jail Authorities must be aware and conscious that an attempt to suicide reflected a mental condition, rather it should have rung the alarm bell that the convict needed to maintain the social ties for his mental health. Instead of appreciating his mental condition, to treat the same as a crime and to issue a “warning”, reflected again the scant understanding of the jail administration regarding the plight of the convict.
The Court stated that it could not be overlooked that he had been in jail for more than twenty years, maybe for a crime that he had committed but that did not denude him of his basic Right to Life. Merely because he was confined to jail, the Court stated that it did not reduce his status to that of a chattel, bereft of any basic fundamental human rights. It was high time that the Jail Authorities demonstrated a little more sensitivity in dealing with such matters.
The Court directed that while considering the Parole/Furlough Applications, the same ground should not be repeatedly reiterated for rejection of Parole/Furlough Application. Once a judicial mind had been disclosed in any order about the validity of any ground for Rejection or Non- Rejection of the Parole/Furlough Application, the same should be more judiciously and scrupulously adhered to by the Jail Authorities.
Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court released the convict on parole for a period of four weeks. The Court stated that the convict should furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. The convict should report to the SHO of the local area once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 am to 11:00 am during the period of parole.
The Court further directed that the convict should furnish a telephone/mobile number to the Jail Superintendent and SHO of local police station, on which he could he contacted, if required. The said telephone number should be kept active and operational at all the times by the convict. The convict should ordinarily reside at the address mentioned in the petition and immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the convict should surrender before the Jail Superintendent. The period of parole should be counted from the day when the convict was released from jail.
[Mohd. Sheikh Noor Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL) 979 of 2025, decided on 16-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sheikh Noor and Zeeshan Diwan, Advocates (DHCLSC).
For the Respondent: Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl.) for the State with Mathew M. Philip, Sangeet Sibou and Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)