Court emphasized balancing public safety and convict rehabilitation in granting parole; relaxation of rules permitted based on individual case merits.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 - Parole - Application for parole of convict who has served part of sentence - Petitioner applied for parole for family reestablishment but was initially denied due to related regulations - Court held that balancing public interest with convict reformation is essential - Relaxation of rules granted in this case as petitioner eligible for parole despite co-accused on parole. (Paras 1, 7, 9).

(B) Parole Granting Principles - The court emphasized the balance between the interests of public safety and rehabilitation of offenders, indicating that not all convicts are suitable for parole while those demonstrating reform should be encouraged. (Paras 7, 8).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, imprisoned since 2009, sought parole for family reintegration but was denied citing unrelated co-accused's status. Official reports confirmed his eligibility and history of good behavior.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that it could grant parole relaxation and allowed release based on previous order, with conditions to prevent contact with co-accused.

Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner could be granted simultaneous parole despite co-accused being on emergency parole.

Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that while simultaneous release of unrelated convicts is typically not permitted, exceptional circumstances warrant consideration for relaxation, emphasizing rehabilitative goals over rigid adherence to rules.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for parole due to long incarceration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. examination of parole eligibility under rule 1212. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. consideration of public interest in granting parole. (Para 6 , 7)
4. rationale behind parole as a rehabilitative tool. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. (Oral)--Writ Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or orders thereby directing the respondent/competent authority to release the petitioner with immediate effect on parole for a period of four weeks as per order dated 10.03.2022 for re-establishing social ties with family and the society.

2. In brief, as per the case of the petitioner, he is in custody since 10.09.2009 and has undergone about 12 years in imprisonment out of the total sentence for 20 years without remission, in FIR No.206/2009, under Section 302/34 IPC, PS Adarsh Nagar. Further the petitioner is claimed to have an excellent record in jail, but despite order dated 10.03.2022, granting parole to the petitioner by Home (General) Department, Delhi Secretariat, the petitioner has not been released from jail. It is pointed out that several convicts released on parole during Covid period, pursuant to orders of the Court, are on parole and have failed to surrender and the petitioner has been declined the privilege in terms of Rule 1212 of Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, since the co-accused has been released on parole.

3. In the status report filed on behalf of the State, it is admitted that the petitioner/convict has been granted parole for a period of four weeks by the Competent Authority, GNCT of Delhi, Home (General) Department, Delhi Secretariat as per order dated 10.03.2022. However, it is pointed out that the co-accused in the same FIR are on emergency parole since 15.05.2021 which has been extended from time to time and co-accused are not the family members of the petitioner as per definition of `family' mentioned in Rule 1201 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The petitioner as such is stated to be not entitled to be released on parole in terms of Note 2 of Rule 1212 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

4. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by respondent, reference may be made to Rule 1212 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and may be beneficially reproduced:

"1212. A convict would be released on parole for a period of maximum eight weeks in minimum two spells in a conviction year. However, the period of release in one spell should not be more than four weeks. There should be one month gap between parole and last furlough availed and vice-versa.

Note:

(1) If the convict has applied for extension after surrendering from the original parole or his application for parole is pending decision when he surrendered after availing original parole then his case will be considered as fresh case.

(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."

5. In terms of Note `2' of Rule 1212 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the simultaneous parole to co-accused is ordinarily not permissible. However, in exceptional circumstances, it may be considered for granting parole to co-accused who are family members.

6. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner may be granted relaxation for simultaneous relief on parole, although co-accused is on emergency parole since long period and petitioner is not related as family member to said co-accused.

7. I am of the considered view that to arrive at a logical conclusion, it may be necessary to recapitulate the need for a balance to be maintained between two competing interests while granting parole or furlough, of reforming the convict on one hand and the public purpose and the interests of soci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document