Merely Because Accused Committed Heinous Offence Is No Basis To Deny Parole: Delhi HC Holds Bar Under Rule 1211 Of Delhi Prisons Rules Is Not Absolute

While ruling that parole should not be denied solely based on the gravity of offence, the Delhi High Court granted parole to two convicts who were sentenced to life imprisonment for the heinous offenses of rape and murder.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed that “parole cannot be denied to the petitioners merely because they have committed a heinous offence. The bar contained in Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 is not absolute. The convict would be entitled to the grant of parole if he is able to show ‘special circumstances’, as contemplated by the aforesaid Rule. Filing of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be considered as a ‘special circumstance’ in terms of Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018”.

Advocate Rohan J. Alva appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Amit Peshwani appe ared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts of the case, the petitioners had been convicted of various offenses under Sections 376, 377, 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court, and their criminal appeal was subsequently dismissed by a Division Bench. The petitioners had requested parole to facilitate the filing of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court, as their appeals against conviction had been rejected and for the purpose of reestablishing social ties. The parole applications were initially rejected based on Rule 1211(VI) of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, which restricts parole for individuals convicted of murder following a rape, except in special circumstances.

After considering the submission, the Bench referred to the case of Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 15 SCC 55], wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner should not be denied parole solely on the grounds of being convicted of a serious and heinous crime.

Further, the Bench noted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2022) SCC OnLine 1346] had granted parole to a convict sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for an offense under Sections 364A/302/201/34 of the IPC, stating that filing an SLP before the Supreme Court constituted a 'special circumstance.'

Hence, the Bench held that parole could not have been denied to the petitioners solely because they had committed a heinous offense. The restriction outlined in Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 was not absolute.

The Bench noted that during the parole consideration, various factors should be considered, including the duration of incarceration, behaviour while in prison, and any involvement in additional criminal cases, among other things.

In the present case, the Bench found that both petitioners had been in custody for around twelve years, their behaviour in prison had been commendable, and they had not been implicated in any other criminal cases.

Given the facts and circumstances, the High Court concluded that both petitioners were eligible for parole. However, in accordance with Note (2) of Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which stipulates that two co-convicts in the same case cannot be released on parole simultaneously, the High Court concluded that the petitioners would need to be released one after the other.

Cause Title: Jamahir @ Jawahar Paswan and Ors v. State (GNCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7751]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment