J U D G M E N T

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for grant of parole for a period of 30 days in Case Nos. 684/2021 and 668/2021.

2. In brief, as per the case of the petitioner, he was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 19.10.2023 in CC No.684/2021 in proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act, wherein he was sentenced to pay Rs. 32 lacs as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of 03 months. Further, in CC No.668/2021, he was directed to pay Rs.8 lacs as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. within 30 days and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months. No appeal is stated to have been preferred against conviction and order on sentence passed by learned Trial Court.

3. It is further the case of the petitioner that he moved an application for releasing him on parole for a period of 30 days for attending the funeral ceremony of his mother on 25.01.2024 before the Court of learned MM, NI Act, Digital Court, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, but the same was not taken on record, compelling him to file the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner is also stated to have preferred an application for parole before D.I.G./D.G. Prisons, Tihar Jail, Delhi as well as Divisional Commissioner (East District), but no response has been received.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has undergone about 2.5 months out of 3 months of sentence and may be released on parole for attending the customary ceremonies on account of death of his mother.

5. On the other hand, learned ASC for the State submits that as per status report received by him, petitioner was sentenced in CC No. 684/2021 under Section 138 NI Act, PS: Gandhi Nagar and has undergone 2 months and 19 days of sentence in jail as on 08.02.2024 and conduct of the convict is satisfactory. However, no information has been received regarding filing or pendency of any application preferred by the petitioner before the Competent Authority. It is further submitted that application, if any filed, can be considered in accordance with law.

6. It has been observed in Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India and Ors., 2000 (1) SCR 945 that the bar of judicial intervention to direct temporary release of a detenu would not affect the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the temporary release of the detenu, where request of the detenu to be released on parole for a specified reason and/or for a specified period, has been, in the opinion of the Court, unjustifiably refused or where in the interest of justice such an order of temporary release is required to be made. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly by the Court, wherein the facts and circumstances so deserve for passing of directions despite the specific provisions in the relevant Prison Rules.

7. In Kiran vs. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6578, the application for grant of parole was rejected by the competent authority on account of a major punishment afflicted to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of parole was allowed by this Court holding that powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed, which is required to be exercised to meet the ends of justice and in case, the release of prisoner on parole is warranted in the exigencies. The observations in paragraphs 11 and 12 therein may be beneficially referred:

“11. As noted above, Rule 1210 (II) provides that the conduct of the prisoner who has been awarded major punishment for any prison offence should have been uniformly good for the last two years from the date of application and the conduct of the prisoner who has been awarded minor punishment or no punishment for any prison offence should have been uniformly good for the last one yea