The Allahabad High Court has refused to grant the benefit of parole to ex-MLA Angad Yadav after taking note of the fact that he has been in good health and nine criminal cases are pending against him. The parole was sought on the grounds of finishing his agricultural work and fixing the marriage of his children.

The High Court found that the petitioner had sufficient means for arranging other alternative arrangements for agricultural work.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti and Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan held, “From a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner/convict is having long list of criminal cases and has been convicted in two of them, i.e. in Case Crime No.835 of 1995 under Sections 147,148,149,302 I.P.C, Police Station- Hajratganj, District- Lucknow, and in Case Crime No.511 of 2016, under Sections 302/120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Sidhari, District Azamgarh, which are in very serious nature. With regard to Rule 1(4)(c) of Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, it is pertinent to note here that nine criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, which has been specifically explained in Annexure No.3 to the instant petition.”

Advocate Ayodhya Prasad Mishra represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, 34 of the IPC by the Trial Court. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his appeal. The petitioner also approached the Supreme Court, but his Special Leave to Appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner moved a representation before the State Authorities under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking short-term bail on the grounds of the petitioner's multiple ailments, old age and humanitarian grounds for a period of two months.

The petitioner made two representations before the State Authorities for the grant of short-term bail/parole, but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the second representation, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing a miscellaneous bail application.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the records of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner/convict was in good health and thus found no substance in the petitioner's claim. However, the jail authorities were directed to take necessary steps considering the health of the petitioner.

The Bench noticed that the State Counsel in his counter affidavit submitted that in the second representation, parole was prayed mainly on the grounds of completing agricultural work and to fix the marriage of his son and daughter. The Bench found substance in the argument of the State Counsel that there is no provision for such an arrangement under Rule 3 of U.P. (Suspension of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007.

Coming to the argument of completing agricultural work, the Bench noted that there is a provision for such an arrangement made under the U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007. Rule 3(d) says that “for sowing or harvesting of agricultural crops on his own land, provided no other alternative arrangement for the same is available”. However, the Bench made it clear that the petitioner has three sons aged 50, 45 & 30 years, and it could be concluded that the petitioner has sufficient means for other alternative arrangements for agricultural work.

Considering the long list of cases registered against the petitioner and holding that the Authorities did take into account relevant considerations while rejecting the request for parole made on behalf of the petitioner, the Bench dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Angad Yadav v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:20161-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, A.P. Mishra, Rituraj Mishra

Respondent: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Rajeev BhartiJustice Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.