Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for grant of parole for one month in FIR under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for his mental health and on account of the ill-health of his father, however, no order was passed even though more than one month had passed. A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., criticized the State Agencies for not following Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (‘Prison Rules’) and showing their defiance to the very objective of introducing provisions of furlough and parole. Accordingly, the Court granted the same to the petitioner and disposed of the petition.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner had applied for parole in July 2025 on the ground of maintaining social ties and family relations to curb inner stress and depression due to incarceration and to take care of his father, who recently got discharged from hospital.
After a lapse of more than one month and twenty days, no decision was taken by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that in many cases, there was violation of the Prison Rules regarding parole application to be decided by the authorities concerned within four weeks. Further, the Court opined that the said authorities had no sensitivity towards the prisoners suffering long incarceration, like the petitioner in the present case. The Court further stated that non-grant of parole or furlough within the fixed time frame only resulted in unrest and defeated the very purpose, which was to enable the prisoners to establish family ties and to not fall into depression and stress because of long incarceration.
The Court held that instances showed State agencies’ defiance to the very objective of introducing provisions of furlough as well as parole and had no respect or care for the prisoners and their mental or physical health. Further, the Court emphasized that they were assured that such long incarceration without any break by way of parole and furlough, could lead to a situation of indiscipline and anarchy in the Jail itself.
The Court highlighted that many orders had been passed by this Court directing the State Agency, to show some sensitivity but it seemed that it was too tall a claim to ask from those sitting in their offices as they had no regard either for law or for the persons in Jail.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and granted parole for four weeks. Further, the Court directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Delhi to appear in person along with an explanation and response as to how this problem should be streamlined.
[Lalit@Lucky v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6452, decided on 8-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate (DHCLC) and Pragya Barsaiyan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State with Abhijeet Kumar and Amisha Gupta, Advocates with Inspector Mahendra Kumar, PS Shahbad Dairy
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
