Grant Of Parole Is Privilege And Not A Right: Delhi HC Dismisses Parole Extension Plea Of Man Sentenced To 182 Years’ Imprisonment
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a man seeking parole extension. The said man was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 182 years.
He had sought extension of parole for a period of six months in a case arising from District Consumer Forum.
A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held, “… in the present case, the petitioner has been avoiding the execution of legal sentence for years together without even preferring the applications before the Competent Authority for extension of grant of parole in accordance with Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The automatic extension of parole by way of writ petitions, which has continued for about 04 years, cannot be considered in routine, ignoring the provisions of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. … This would be contrary to the scheme for grant of furlough and parole provided under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The grant of parole is a privilege and not a right to be extended in routine for the periods over and above as specified in the Rules only in exceptional circumstances.”
The Bench said that the sentence imposed cannot be escaped and that the parole endlessly continued merely on the ground that efforts are being made by the petitioner to arrange the funds for settling the cases with plot buyers.
Advocate Akshay Bhandari appeared for the petitioner while ASC Yasir Rauf Ansari appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner had already undergone 7 years of custody having been sentenced to a total period of 182 years in jail arising out of a case in District Consumer Forum, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The said case was instituted by Triputi Township Plot Holder Association that represented the interest of plot buyers. He was released on parole by the High Court which was extended from time to time in view of his assurance to settle the claims.
The last order was passed in January this year extending the parole. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was expected to receive the compensation for land acquired by Ghaziabad Development Authority which would be sufficient to cover the interests of plot buyers excluding those whose cases were already settled by the petitioner. The proceedings were initiated in this regard at Allahabad High Court and parole was sought to be extended to enable him to pursue the litigation proceedings and arrange the funds.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “The proposition in this regard is well-settled 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 or the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32, 136 or 142 of the Constitution of India, to direct the temporary release of detenu, where request of 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.”
The Court added that the said jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly by the Court, wherein the facts and circumstance so deserve for passing of directions despite the specific provisions in the relevant Prison Rules.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Rakesh Kumar v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:1019)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Akshay Bhandari, Megha Saroa, and Anmol Sachdeva.
Respondents: ASC Yasir Rauf Ansari, Advocates Mohit Raj Nagar, Alok Sharma and Vasu Agarwal.
