$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 16.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 27.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 28.03.2026 + W.P.(CRL) 577/2026 ABHINAV ANAND @BABBAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai (DHCLSC), Mr. Surya Pratap Singh and Mr. Abhilash Kumar Pathak, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the State with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Mr. Shubham Goyal and Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh Senger, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the rejection order bearing number F.18/282/2018/HG/PRISONS/4297-4300 dated 09.01.2026 passed by the respondent/competent authority, and writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two months.

2. The facts, as apparent from the records, are that the petitioner herein is presently confined in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi, in connection with case arising out of FIR No. 281/2012, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi. The petitioner faced trial in the said FIR, and he was convicted vide judgment dated 21.02.2017 by the learned Trial Court for offences under Sections 302/367/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟], and vide order on sentence of even date, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner had filed criminal appeal, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2018 and his conviction under Section 377 of the IPC was set aside. Thereafter, the Special Leave Petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.03.2022.

3. The nominal roll of the petitioner has been received. Upon perusal of the same, it is noted that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for about 13 years in relation to the present case.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has, as on date, undergone actual custody of about 13 years, excluding remission. It is argued that the object of parole is reformative in nature, intended inter alia to preserve family ties and facilitate social reintegration. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had jumped parole in July 2023, for which he was duly punished vide Punishment Ticket dated 01.09.2023 in which the Canteen Facility was stopped. However, it is emphasised that the said lapse was neither deliberate nor intentional, but arose out of compelling personal and family circumstances. Importantly, during the said period, the petitioner neither indulged in any criminal activity nor committed any act of violence, and he ultimately surrendered voluntarily before the jail authorities. It is further submitted that since his re-arrest, the petitioner has remained in custody for more about two and a half years, and his overall conduct, particularly during this period, has been consistently satisfactory. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole for a period of three weeks.

5. On the other hand, the learned ASC for the State submits that the applicant has jumped parole on multiple occasions and has been re-arrested twice, once in 2020 and thereafter in 2023. It is further stated that the petitioner has also been awarded various jail punishments between 27.11.2017 to 01.09.2023 and his overall jail conduct has been reported as unsatisfactory. Such conduct, according to the learned ASC, clearly demonstrates a repeated and deliberate breach of the trust reposed in him by the prison authorities as well as this Court, but he has consistently misused the liberty granted to him. In these circumstances, the possibility of the petitioner absconding again, if released on