Desire To Console Ailing Parents Not Ground For Emergent Parole: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that desire of an undertrial to console ailing parents, is not, by itself, a ground for emergent parole under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

The Court was considering a Petition assailing an order whereby the Application of the Petitioner seeking Custody Parole for two weeks was rejected.

The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, "The right to family life under Article 21 must indeed be respected even for undertrial prisoners, but such right is subject to lawful restrictions imposed in the interest of security, discipline, and the administration of justice. The petitioner’s desire to console his parents, though understandable, cannot by itself constitute a ground for emergent parole under Rule 1203 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. While dismissing the application, the Ld. Trial court has taken note that even though the diagnosis of the petitioner’s mother suggest Papillary Carcinoma disease, but no surgery is scheduled and there is no life threatening situation warranting the grant of custody parole to the petitioner."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate A. Nowfal while the Respondent was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, an undertrial facing prosecution under Sections 120B, 121A, 122 and153A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 22C, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 has remained in judicial custody since September 2022.

He sought custody parole for two weeks citing serious ailments of his parents and brother and stating that he wanted to assist his family and provide support. The Application was, however, dismissed after obtaining verification report from the concerned authorities stating that the Parents and Brother of the Petitioner were not suffering from any emergent/ life threatening ailments.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the ailments of the Petitioner’s parents, particularly his mother’s cancer diagnosis, fall within the ambit of “severe illness” and the Trial court failed to consider the humanitarian aspect and the Delhi Prison Rules, which permit inmates to visit severely ill family members.

He further submitted that the Petitioner’s right to visit and take care of his family is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the denial of permission on the humanitarian ground of supporting his family would cause deep emotional trauma to the Petitioner, and would amount to an unreasonable restriction upon his fundamental right.

On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor submitted that no life-threatening condition of the Petitioner’s parents has been shown which would justify the grant of custody parole and that adequate medical treatment is already being provided for the Petitioner’s family members.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset pointed out that the purpose of custody parole is to allow a prisoner to attend to pressing humanitarian or personal obligations such as funerals, last rites, or serious health issue of family member, under strict supervision of the authorities

Noting that while the presumption of innocence must operate until conviction, the gravity of the charges cannot be ignored in the exercise of discretionary powers relating to parole, the Court was disinclined to grant bail.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Mohamed Ali Jinnah v. National Investigation Agency

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocates A. Nowfal, Shaikh Saipan, Md. Arif Hussain

Respondent- Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, Special Public Prosecutor Vikas Walia, Assistant Special Public Prosecutor Jatin, Advocate Amit Rohila

Click here to read/ download Order