Delhi HC Deprecates Practice Of Filing Writ Petitions For Parole Within A Few Days Of Filing Application With Jail Authorities
The Delhi High Court stated that the practice of filing writ petitions for parole or furlough shortly after submitting applications to jail authorities, without awaiting the outcome or as per the Delhi Prison Rules must be deprecated.
The Bench made the remark following an inmate's submission of a parole application on the grounds of his elder brother's medical condition. Despite the application being pending with jail authorities, the inmate filed a writ petition just five days after submitting the application.
The Court explained, “Such practice only adds to the burden of the Courts, since for the purpose of passing an order, the Courts have to go through the order of rejection of furlough or parole to ascertain the reasons for such refusal. bypassing the usual procedure of awaiting a decision from the authorities.”
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “The practice of filing of writ petitions for grant of parole or furlough within a few days of filing the application before the jail/competent authorities, without waiting for the outcome of such application and the time period for deciding such applications as per Delhi Prison Rules, has to be deprecated…At times, such writ petitions are filed before Courts without waiting for the outcome, and in the meanwhile, the authorities concerned decide the applications in the favour of such petitioners, which make the entire process of filing writ petitions, a futile exercise.”
Advocate Chetan Bhardwaj represented the petitioner, while ASC Sanjeev Bhandari appeared for the respondent.
The inmate was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the trial court after he was convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court IN 2009.
The reason specified by the inmate for the grant of parole was on the ground that his elder brother was suffering from Tuberculosis of the Spine and lower Urinary Tract, and as a younger brother, he needed to look after his medical and financial needs.
At the outset, the Court noted that the application for grant of parole was submitted by the inmate and “the said application is yet to be decided or yet to receive a response, since it was filed only five days prior to filing of the present writ petition.”
Stating that the writ petition was ‘premature,’ the Court held that the inmate should have waited for the outcome of the application for parole filed by him.
Consequently, the Court directed the petition to be treated as a representation made by the inmate and to expedite the process of consideration.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.
Cause Title: Ramesh @ Dudhiya v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3496)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Chetan Bhardwaj and Priyal Bhardwaj
Respondent: ASC Sanjeev Bhandari; Advocate Anvita Bhandari, Kunal Mittal, Arjit Sharma and Vaibhav Vats
