IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement to parole should be considered in light of the unique facts and circumstances of the case, the principles of parole, and the right to personal freedom.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking the following relief:

"a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order no.F.18/229/2014/HG/1788 dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Respondent; and

b. Issue a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 4 weeks; or"

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was denied parole vide impugned order dated 16.06.2023 only on the ground that the petitioner did not surrender when he was released on emergency parole on 23.05.2020 for a period of 8 weeks, which was further extended time to time due to COVID-19 and that as per nominal roll, the jail conduct of the accused was unsatisfactory. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner continuously enquiring about the date of surrender from the jail authority, he was informed that he need not surrender as his emergency parole was being extended and no such intimation was given to the petitioner with regard to his date of surrender. It is further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 30.06.2008 and has undergone 13 years and 7 months in custody and has earned approximately 2 years of remission. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a family to support and for their subsistence he used to send money by working as "Wasing Sahayak" in the jail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following orders passed by this Court:

• Ramjani v. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 2138/2022;
• Vinod @ Vinoda vs. The State (Govt of N.C.T. Delhi) in W.P. (CRL) 89/2023.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposes the present petition submitting that when the petitioner was released on emergency parole, he did not surrender on due date and jumped the parole and was later arrested on 09.07.2021 for which a punishment ticket against him was issued. He further submitted that petitioner's conduct while incarcerated has been unsatisfactory, leading to multiple disciplinary actions taken by the prison authorities.

5. In the present case, a perusal of the status report filed by the State shows that the petitioner was granted emergency parole on 23.05.2020, and it was periodically extended owing to the COVID-19 epidemic until 14.02.2021, however, he failed to surrender before jail authorities on time and jumped the emergency parole thereafter he was arrested on 09.07.2021. As per nominal roll dated 04.08.2023, the petitioner has undergone about 13 years, 11 months and 03 days actual incarceration and he has also earned about 1 year 9 months and 1 day remission. As far as the contention of learned Standing Counsel on non surrender of the petitioner on time is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner was not given intimation about the date on which he was supposed to surrender before the jail authorities. Moreover, no document has been placed by the State to show that the petitioner was informed about his date of surrender and despite that he did not surrender.

6. Reliance can be placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:

"19. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interest has also to be kept in mind while deciding as to whether in a particular case parole or furlough is to be granted or not. This public interest also demands that those who are habitual offenders and may have the tendency to commit the crime again after their release on parole or have the tendency to become a threat to the law and order of the society, should not be released on parole. This aspect takes care of other objectives of sentencing, namely, deterrence and prevention. This sid