The Hon’ble Delhi  High Court ruled that the grant of parole is a privilege and not a right to be extended in routine for the periods over and above as specified in the Rules only in exceptional circumstances.

Brief Facts: 

The present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner for extension of parole for a period of six months in case from District Consumer Forum. 

As per the Petitioner, he has undergone 07 years of custody having been sentenced to a total period of 182 years in jail. 

Contentions of the Petitioner: 

It was submitted that petitioner is expected to receive the compensation for land acquired by Ghaziabad Development Authority, which would be sufficient to cover the interests of plot buyers excluding those whose cases have already been settled by the Petitioner.

Observations of the Court: 

It was observed that as per the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018; the Competent Authority to consider the cases for granting or extending regular Parole, other than cases falling under Rule 1211, is Lieutenant Governor of Government of National capital Territory of Delhi or any other officer to whom the power may be delegated in this regard. 

Further, the Court after observing judicial precedent, opined that the bar of judicial intervention to direct temporary release of a detenu would not affect the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32, 136 or 142 of the Constitution of India, to direct the temporary release of detenu, where request of detenu to be released on parole for a specified reason and / or for a specified period has been, in the opinion of the Court unjustifiably refused or where, in the interest of justice such an order of temporary release is required to be made.

As per the facts of the present case, it was noted that the automatic extension of parole by way of writ petitions, has continued for about 04 years and the same cannot be considered in routine, ignoring the provisions of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The sentence imposed cannot be escaped and parole endlessly continued merely on the ground that efforts are being made by the petitioner to arrange the funds for settling the cases with plot buyers. This would be contrary to the scheme for grant of furlough and parole provided under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

The Bench opined that the grant of parole is a privilege and not a right to be extended in routine for the periods over and above as specified in the Rules only in exceptional circumstances.

The decision of the Court: 

Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the Court accordingly dismissed the petition. 

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar v. State

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 60/2024

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Advocates for Petitioners: Advs Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Ms. Megha Saroa and Mr. Anmol Sachdeva

Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Mohit Raj Nagar, Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Vasu Agarwal

Read More @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :