In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to assail an order dated 18-10-2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the parole of the petitioner was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja stated that petitioner’s desire to console his parents could not be a ground to grant parole and dismissed the petition.
The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner, was lodged in Tihar jail since 22-09-2022 and was facing prosecution under Sections 120B/121A/122/153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 13/17/18/18A/22C/38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The petitioner sought a parole of two weeks because of the serious ailments of his parents and brother.
It was submitted that the petitioner wanted to assist his family and provide support. However, this application was dismissed by the trial court after a verification report was received, as per which, his parents and brother were not suffering from any life-threatening ailments. Thus, the present petition was filed.
The petitioner submitted that his mother’s cancer diagnosis fell within the ambit of ‘severe illness’ and that since he was the elder son, he had a duty to take care of his ailing parents. It was contended that the petitioner had been in custody since 2022 and that Rule 1203 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 mandates that custody parole may be granted to an undertrial prisoner due to a serious health issue of a family member.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) submitted that the case against the petitioner was related to a conspiracy whereby the petitioner was an NEC member of the banned organisation Popular Front of India (PFI) and was involved in raising and channelizing funds for carrying out unlawful and terrorist activities against the government.
The Court stated that it was a well-settled principle of law that a prisoner, whether convicted or undertrial, continues to enjoy the protection of the fundamental rights, save to the extent curtailed by lawful detention. It was said that the purpose of custody parole is to allow a prisoner to attend to pressing humanitarian or personal obligations.
Further, the Court said that even though the petitioner placed medical certificates on record, no life-threatening situation that required the petitioner’s presence emerged from the same. It was stated that the trial court correctly observed that the described ailments were manageable under ongoing medical supervision.
The Court also noted that the petitioner was facing trial for offences under UAPA and that even though the presumption of innocence should operate until conviction, the gravity of the charges cannot be ignored. The Court also stated that the right to family under Article 21 is subject to lawful restrictions imposed in the interest of security, discipline, and justice. It was held that the petitioner’s desire to console his parents could not itself be a ground for emergent parole.
The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and said that the petitioner had failed to make out an emergent ground for the grant of custody parole and thus dismissed the petition.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. A. Nowfal, Mr. Shaikh Saipan, Mr. Md. Arif Hussain
For Respondent – Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Mr. Vikas Walia, Mr. Jatin, Mr. Amit Rohila
