The Delhi High Court in the case observed wherein the special leave petition, SLP is filed before the Supreme Court by the convict challenging the conviction constitutes a special circumstance in order to grant parole in terms of Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
The bench headed by Justice Amit Sharma in the case observed and has stated that this court is of the opinion that the bar contained in Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute. Thus, the ground taken i.e., for the, filing on an SLP constitutes a ‘special circumstance’ in terms of the said rule.
The court observed that it has been stated under Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules provides various categories of offences where parole shall not be granted, except, if there being special circumstances in the discretion of the competent authority.
In the present case, the court was dealing with the plea moved by the life convict for granting the parole for three months in order to file an SLP before the Apex Court and for re-establishing social ties. Therefore, he was being convicted for the offence of murder and kidnapping for ransom.
The court in the case stated that the present petitioner has been convicted for offences as stated under Section 364A, Section 302, Section 201, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which includes the murder and kidnapping for ransom. Thus, the said case falls within sub-clause (X) of Rule 1211.
The court also noted that the bar contained therein is subject to existence of ‘special circumstances.’
The bench of Justice Sharma in the case observed and has released the convict on parole for a period of six weeks observing that the nominal roll reflected that his jail conduct was satisfactory and that he was not involved in any other case.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the nominal roll further reflects that the petitioner has undergone 11 years 05 months and 25 days of imprisonment and upon the expiry of the interim bail granted to the petitioner, he duly surrendered before the jail authorities and while he being out on the interim bail, no complaints in relation to his conduct were received.
The DHCLSC counsel Rohan J. Alva appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, ASC (Crl.) Rahul Tyagi, with Advocate Surender Sharma, Advocate Sangeet Sibou, Advocate MJatin and Advocate Aashish Chujar represented the State.