IMPORTANT POINT
The gravity of the offence should not be the sole ground to deny parole, and individuals have the right to pursue legal recourse regardless of the severity of the offence or foreign nationality.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. By way of this present writ 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 mandamus directing the Respondents to release the Petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks for filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for seeking specialized opinion in respect of medical ailments and for maintenance of social ties, and/or

b) Pass any other or further orders/directions as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in bonafide interest and furtherance of justice."

2. Heard.

3. Records perused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner vide judgment dated 28.09.2021 was convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and vide order on sentence dated 05.10.2021, he was awarded life imprisonment. He further submitted that till now the petitioner has undergone a period of 121/2 years. He further submitted that due to this prolonged period of continuous incarceration, the petitioner has been suffering from grave mental health repercussions including severe medical ailments like insomnia, gastrological issues, sever migrane and neurological issues. He further submitted that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.05.2023 granted one day custody parole to the petitioner for regularising his stay in India being a foreign national. He further submitted that since the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 20.09.2022, the petitioner intends to file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the petitioner may be granted parole for eight weeks for the said purpose.

5. On the contrary, learned ASC for the State, while vehemently opposing the present petition, submitted that the petitioner is a foreign national and has committed a grave offence for which he has been convicted. She further submitted that the jail superintendent vide order dated 13.04.2023 has already dismissed the parole application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a foreign national and the parole could not be granted to him due to gravity of offence, moreover, the address given by the petitioner for his stay if in case he is released on parole was unverifiable. She further submitted that in such circumstances petitioner may abscond if granted parole.

6. In Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017)15 SCC 55, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that gravity of offence cannot be a ground to deny parole. The relevant portion of the above said judgment reads as follows:

"19) Another vital aspect that needs to be discussed is as to whether there can be any presumption that a person who is convicted of serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal. Hardened criminal would be a person for whom it has become a habit or way of life and such a person would necessarily tend to commit crimes again and again. Obviously, if a person has committed a serious offence for which he is convicted, but at the same time it is also found that it is the only crime he has committed, he cannot be categorised as a hardened criminal. In his case consideration should be as to whether he is showing the signs to reform himself and become a good citizen or there are circumstances which would indicate that he has a tendency to commit the crime again or that he would be a threat to the society. Mere nature of the offence committed by him should not be a factor to deny the parole outrightly. Wherever a person convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of offence for which he was sentenced. We may hasten to put a rider here, viz. in those cases where a person has been convicted for committing a serious office, the competent authority, while examining such cases, can be well advised to have stricter standards in