In a criminal writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of an order dated 05-12-2025 whereby the petitioner’s request for parole was rejected, as well as parole for two months in a First Information Report (FIR) registered for the commission of offences under Sections 5(m), (n), (p), and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia granted parole to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
The petitioner had suffered incarceration for six years out of a total period of twenty-four years of rigorous imprisonment awarded to him, and had applied for parole on the grounds that he had to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the upholding of his conviction and sentence. The impugned order rejecting his parole was passed on the ground that, being a POCSO convict, the petitioner could not be granted parole under Rule 1211(VII) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The petition was opposed, with the Aligarh police objecting to the grant of parole.
The Court examined the report of the Aligarh police and stated that it was completely mechanical, as they had only submitted that the petitioner could flee if he were released on parole, but no reasons for the same were provided.
The Court stated that even though the SLP could be filed by the prisoner through a legal aid counsel, his right to be effectively heard, as well as the right to choose his private counsel, could not be denied. The Court also said that to ensure effective communication between the prisoner and his counsel, the visitor’s room in jail was not a conducive environment.
The Court held that to ensure that the petitioner is not deprived of his right to be effectively heard by the Supreme Court, parole could not be denied to him. Hence, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner’s release on parole for four weeks, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety of like amount. His parole was also made subject to his furnishing his mobile number and other details to the Aligarh police. The petitioner was also directed to provide a copy of his SLP to the Jail Superintendent at the time of his surrender after completion of the parole period, and it was made clear that the parole would not be extended under any circumstances.
The Court directed the Jail Superintendent to inform the petitioner in writing the specific date on which he would have to surrender after the parole period.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai, Mr. Abhilash Kr. Pathak
For Respondent – Mr. Abhijeet Kumar
