Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Sartaj @ Allaharakha – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(Cr) 532 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Parole - Mental Health of Prisoners - Rule 1210 (II) of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 - The court rejected the parole application of the petitioner based on his unsatisfactory conduct in prison and repeated violations of prison rules. The judgment also highlighted the inadequacy of existing prison rules to address the mental and emotional well-being of convicts, emphasizing the need for regular counseling and psychological help for long-incarcerated prisoners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought parole to engage a counsel for filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court after being in judicial custody for over 10 years. The court rejected the parole application due to the petitioner's unsatisfactory conduct in prison and repeated violations of prison rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct in prison, including multiple punishments and rule violations, disentitled him from seeking parole. It also recognized the need for regular counseling and psychological help for long-incarcerated prisoners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted parole despite his unsatisfactory conduct in prison and repeated violations of prison rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's repeated violations of prison rules disentitled him from seeking parole, while also emphasizing the need for regular counseling and psychological help for long-incarcerated prisoners.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and directed prison authorities to implement guidelines for identifying and addressing mental and emotional health issues of inmates, emphasizing the protection of prisoners' dignity and mental well-being.
JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
Factual Background
Arguments By Learned Counsels
Relevant Rule Governing Grant Of Parole: Rule 1210 (II) Of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018
Conduct Of The Petitioner During Judicial Custody
Need To Balance Long Period Of Incarceration With Right To Mental Health Of Prisoners
i. Inadequacy Of Existing Prison Rules To Deal With Mental And Emotional Well-Being Of The Convicts
ii. Reformation And Prison Health
iii. Report Of Amicus Curie
The Judicial Recognition Of Pain Of Long Incarceration Of A Person
Directions Apropos Ensuring Mental And Emotional Health Of Prisoners
Conclusion
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 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 18.01.2023 passed by respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking parole, and also for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 08 weeks for engaging a counsel of his own choice for filing Special Leave Petition ('SLP') before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. In the present case, the petitioner was arrested in FIR bearing no. 157/2013 registered at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and was taken into judicial custody on 21.06.2013. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide judgment dated 29.01.2019 convicted the petitioner under Section 302/34 of IPC and by way of order on sentence dated 01.02.2019, the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 923/2019 before this Court against the judgment and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. However, the said Criminal Appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 02.09.2022 whereby the conviction and order on sentence as recorded by the learned Trial Court was upheld.
ARGUMENTS BY LEARNED COUNSELS
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, New Delhi in relation to the present case and since his date of arrest i.e. in the year 2013, he has continuously remained in jail i.e. for a period of more than 10 years and that he was never released on bail or parole. It is argued that the respondent had dismissed the parole application filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the conduct of petitioner in the jail was unsatisfactory and he had been awarded several punishments. However, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner wishes to avail an opportunity to engage a counsel of his choice for the purposes of filing SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court which falls under special circumstances for which parole should be granted to the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon several decisions of this Bench as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereby parole has been granted on ground of filing SLP. Learned counsel for the petitioner also accepts that this is a case where the petitioner has repeatedly been awarded punishments in the jail and his conduct has remained unsatisfactory, however, he states that this in fact, reflects upon the state of the petitioner's mental health and even makes a better ground for him to be released on parole as he has continuously remained in judicial custody for more than 10 years.
4. Learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, argues that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the jail authority dismissing the parole application filed by the petitioner. It is argued that there are no other special circumstances which necessitate the exercise of discretion by this Court as in the present case, the conduct of the petitioner, not only in past two
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a convict's repeated violations of prison rules can disentitle them from seeking parole, while also highlighting the need for regular counseli....
Parole serves to maintain family ties and facilitate rehabilitation; denial must be justified by substantial evidence of risk to public order or security.
Parole – Convicts have right to breathe fresh air for short periods – Any objection raised by local inhabitants/relative cannot be sole determinative basis for refusing parole.
The right to file an SLP before the Supreme Court is a valuable right that should not be denied based on past conduct.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on objections from the victim's family; solid evidence is required to substantiate claims of danger or public disorder.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for parole under the Delhi Prison Rules-2018, specifically focusing on the petitioner's failure to fulfill the conditions of furlou....
Parole rejection invalid if solely based on offence nature without evidence of threat to state security or public order; releasing authority must independently assess good conduct and reform potentia....
The court upheld the DPAC's discretion in denying parole, emphasizing the need for valid concerns regarding law and order and the applicability of the old Parole Rules of 1958.
Releasing authority must independently assess parole applications beyond district non-recommendation; good conduct prisoners entitled to temporary release for family ties despite serious offence, abs....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
