In W.P.(CRL) 125/2022-DEL HC- Period spent by prisoner outside prison on furlough shall be counted towards his sentence, says Delhi HC Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta [30-05-2022]

Read Order: SIKANDAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI 

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, May 31, 2022: The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that parole may be granted to establish social ties but the same needs to be assessed in the light of jail conduct of the prisoner and circumscribed by conditions provided in Rules 1210 & 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

While observing that  the case of the petitioner fell in the category of cases under Rule 1210 whereby the convict is not eligible to be released on parole, the Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C assailing the impugned order by the Competent Authority and said, “Merely because the petitioner had been earlier released on parole cannot be a ground that he is entitled to be released automatically without consideration of his subsequent conduct. If the overall conduct for the last one year is reported to be ‘unsatisfactory’, the petitioner cannot claim parole as a matter of right as he becomes ineligible for grant of the same.”

The present writ petition was preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Facts in brief for adjudication of the present petition were that the petitioner in the present case approached the Competent Authority for grant of parole for a period of three months in order to maintain social ties and & family relations, to curb inner stress due to prolonged incarceration and to offer prayers at the grave of his deceased mother. However, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Competent Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition was instituted. 

After considering the submissions of both the parties, the Court took Chapter XI of Delhi Prison Act, 2000 into consideration which deals with prison offences. Adverting to the order dated November 22, 2021, passed by the Competent Authority, the Court opined that a plain reading of the same revealed that the petitioner was awarded 20 multiple punishments on various occasions, as per Rule 127 of DPR, 2018. It was further noted by the Court that the case of the petitioner ell in the category of cases under Rule 1210 whereby the convict is not eligible to be released on parole. 

In view of the same, the reliance of the Competent Authority on rules 1210 and 1211 couldot be faulted with, the Court remarked.  The punishments dated August 12, 2021 and August 15, 2021 were rightly considered by the Competent Authority in denying the benefit of parole, the Court opined. 

Thus, this Court was of the view that the order passed by the Competent Authority called for no interference and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Bench also found it to be in consonance with the objectives under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.