JUDGMENT :

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by GNCTD rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking parole for a period of three month and also for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three months.

2. In brief, the case of petitioner is that he was convicted, vide order dated 30.08.2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 364A/368/344/347/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in case FIR bearing no. 393/2007, registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi and was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 25.02.2016. In relation to this case, the petitioner has undergone almost 14 years and 10 months in jail.

3. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has been released on parole twice, once by the order of this Court and once by GNCTD. Further, petitioner had been granted furlough on 07 occasions and that he had never misused this liberty and surrendered before the Competent Authority without any delay and no adverse report had been received from the police or competent authority. It is further stated that petitioner was granted parole for the third time i.e. when he was released on emergency parole due to COVID-19 pandemic situation on 15.05.2021, which was extended from time to time, but came to be re-arrested in another FIR No. 210/2021, registered at PS Special Cell, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. However, it is stated that petitioner has been granted bail in this case.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the conduct of the petitioner in last more than 14 years has been satisfactory and 02 years have passed now from the date when FIR bearing no. 210/2021 was registered. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner seeks parole to re-establish social ties and further to complete the process of partition of ancestral joint property of family due to increasing differences in the family and due to repeated ill-health of the wife of the petitioner as she is undergoing treatment for her kidney.

5. On the other hand, learned ASC for the State has opposed the grant of parole on the ground that during the last parole, petitioner had committed another offence and if he is released on parole, there is no guarantee that petitioner will not commit further offences.

6. Heard the learned counsels for petitioner as well as State.

7. In the instant case, the petitioner had filed an application before the respondent for grant of parole which was dismissed by the respondent vide order dated 18.11.2022 by observing as under :

“1. The convict is not entitled for parole in view of Rule 1210 sub rule (III), (IV) and Rule 1212 Note (2) of Delhi Prison Rules-2018, which states that: -

1210 sub rule (III):- “During the period of release on parole or furlough, if granted earlier, the convict should not have committed any crime”.

1210 sub rule (IV):- “The convict should not have violated any terms and conditions of the parole or furlough granted previously”. In this case, the above said convict was released on emergency parole on 15.05.2021, which was extended time to time due to COVID-19 pandemic situation but he was re-arrested on 14.08.2021 in another case FIR no. 210/2021, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Special Cell, Delhi.

Rule 1212 Note (2):- “Simultaneous parole to co-accused is ordinarily not permissible, however, in exceptional circumstances competent authority may consider for reasons in writing for granting parole to co-accused who are family members”. In this case, as per nominal roll, one of his co-accused of said convict namely Ashok Kumar Yadav was released