Back
's Can't Block Lifelong Prisoner's Family Time: Delhi HC Clears Path for School Admission Aid
In a compassionate ruling blending family welfare with prison policy, the has declared that a 's ongoing does not justify denying to another life-term prisoner. Justice Manoj Jain ordered the immediate release of petitioner Vicky @ Gobind , serving a , to help secure his 16-year-old daughter's admission into Class 11.
From Iron Bars to School Forms: The Family Plight at Stake
Vicky @ Gobind, whose has reached finality without appeal to the Supreme Court, was approved for his third spell of two-week on , by jail authorities. But release stalled: a co-accused was already out on four-week , set to return . The petitioner argued urgency—his daughter, currently at New Holy Public School in Uttam Nagar, needed swift enrollment preferably at Kamal Public School in Vikas Puri. Fears mounted that the 's wife’s illness might prompt a extension, further delaying family support.
This under criminal jurisdiction highlighted tensions in (), where notes that simultaneous to co-convicts is . The court scrutinized whether this created an absolute bar, especially when —not —was involved for the co-accused.
Petitioner's Plea: Beyond Bars, a Father's Duty
Counsel for Vicky stressed practical family crises: the daughter's academic transition couldn't wait. Oral updates confirmed her current schooling, but admission deadlines loomed. The petitioner worried aloud about the 's potential extension, painting a picture of cascading delays in an already fragmented family life. , they argued, was no luxury but a right tied to rehabilitation and good behavior.
The State, represented by its standing counsel, held firm on the initial refusal, citing the co-accused's as a security protocol under prison norms. No formal counter-affidavit detailed risks, but the was requisitioned for review.
Parsing Prison Rules: No Absolute Lockout
Justice Jain delved into the rules' nuances. While simultaneous
for co-convicts is typically avoided, the note implies flexibility—no
complete prohibition
. Crucially, the co-accused was on
, distinct from
. The court rejected this as a "
," affirming
as
"merely an
."
No precedents were invoked, but the ruling clarifies: family imperatives like child education outweigh routine cautions when approvals are pre-granted. Reports echoing this—such as
"
Being On
No Bar To
"
—underscore the decision's resonance in legal circles.
Key Observations
"simultaneous to is, ordinarily, not permissible. Thus, apparently, there is no in releasing any such on if the other is already availing ."
"Grant of is, merely, an and the fact that co-accused is already on , should not be a when it comes to securing admission for his child."
"the present petition is disposed of with direction to the competent authority/Superintendent, Jail to release the petitioner within three days for third spell of for a period of two weeks"
Release Ordered: A Two-Week Window to Father's Role
The court disposed of W.P.(CRL) 1389/2026 on , mandating release within three days per the March 18 order. This sets a precedent: prison authorities must prioritize individualized assessments over blanket restrictions, potentially easing access for family milestones.
For lifers and their kin, it's a beacon—reinforcing that good conduct unlocks not just gates, but life's small victories like school admissions. Future petitions may cite this to humanize rigid rules, balancing security with humanity.
