logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 DHC 336 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Delhi
Case No : W.P.(CRL). No. 832 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Parties : Deepak Kumar@Deepu Yadav Versus State Of NCT Of Delhi
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Arhum Sayeed, Rahil Ahmed, Advocates. For the Respondent: Amol Sinha, ASC, Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 19-05-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 DHC 4468,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Rule 1208(vii) of the Delhi Prisons Rules
- Order No. F.l8/477/2025/HG/ Prisons/4429-32 dated 16.01.2026

2. Catch Words:
- Parole
- Maintenance of social ties
- House repair

3. Summary:
The petitioner, serving a life term for murder after rape, applied for a two‑month parole on grounds of house repair and maintaining social ties. The competent authority rejected the application, citing no immediate need for house repairs. The ASC submitted a verification report with a photograph confirming the house required no repair. The petitioner’s counsel emphasized the necessity of maintaining social ties, invoking Rule 1208(vii) of the Delhi Prisons Rules, which the ASC did not contest. The court found the impugned order defective for ignoring the social‑ties ground and set it aside. Consequently, the petitioner was granted parole for four weeks, subject to a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with a surety. The Jail Superintendent is directed to inform the petitioner of the surrender date in writing.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

Judgment (Oral)

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of Order No. F.l8/477/2025/HG/ Prisons/4429-32 dated 16.01.2026 passed by the competent authority and grant of parole for a period of two months.

2. Learned ASC assisted by Inspector Chetan Singh submits that verification report/reply has already been filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned ASC.

4. Broadly speaking, the petitioner, convicted of murder after rape, is undergoing life imprisonment and has already spent almost 17 years in jail. The parole was sought by the petitioner on two grounds, namely, repair of his house and maintenance of social ties. The parole application was dismissed by the competent authority on the ground that on being checked, it was found that his house did not require any immediate repairs.

5. Learned ASC refers to the verification report dated 09.05.2026, which is accompanied with a picture of the house of the petitioner and it is contended that no repair is required in the said house. I find substance that the picture of the house of petitioner does not show that the house requires any repair.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that his vital ground seeking parole is to maintain social ties. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner refers to Rule 1208(vii) of the Delhi Prisons Rules, which contemplates this ground. On this aspect, learned ASC, in all fairness, does not contest.

7. That being so, the impugned order to the extent that the same does not consider the necessity for the petitioner to maintain social ties is not sustainable and the same is set aside.

8. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent.

9. At the time of releasing the petitioner on parole, the concerned Jail Superintendent shall inform him in writing against acknowledgment, the specific date on which the petitioner has to surrender back after completion of parole period.

10. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance.
 
  CDJLawJournal