The Delhi High Court has ruled that an undertrial’s wish to console ailing parents is not a valid reason for emergent parole under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, emphasizing that emotional grounds alone don’t justify parole relief.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that an undertrial’s desire to console his ailing parents does not constitute a valid ground for granting emergent parole under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
The judgment came in a petition challenging an order that rejected the petitioner’s application for custody parole of two weeks. The case was heard by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, who emphasized that while the right to family life under Article 21 of the Constitution must be respected even for prisoners, it remains subject to lawful restrictions in the interests of security, discipline, and the administration of justice.
Court’s Observation
Justice Dudeja observed:
“The petitioner’s desire to console his parents, though understandable, cannot by itself constitute a ground for emergent parole under Rule 1203 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.”
The Court further noted that although the petitioner’s mother was diagnosed with Papillary Carcinoma, no surgery had been scheduled, and there was no life-threatening situation justifying the grant of custody parole.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, who has been in judicial custody since September 2022, is facing prosecution under Sections 120B, 121A, 122, and 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 22C, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
He sought custody parole, citing the serious ailments of his parents and brother, claiming he wished to assist and console them. However, after a verification report from the concerned authorities confirmed that none of them were suffering from any life-threatening condition, the trial court dismissed the application.
Arguments Before the Court
Petitioner’s Submissions
Represented by Advocate A. Nowfal, the petitioner argued that:
- His mother’s cancer diagnosis amounts to a “severe illness” under the Delhi Prison Rules.
- The Trial Court failed to consider the humanitarian aspect of the request.
- Denying custody parole violates his right to family life under Article 21 and causes emotional trauma.
Respondent’s Submissions
Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, representing the State, opposed the plea, contending that:
- No life-threatening medical condition had been established.
- The family was receiving adequate medical treatment.
- Granting custody parole in such circumstances would set an undesirable precedent.
ALSO READ: Kerala HC Grants Parole to Life Convict for Marriage: “Love Recognizes No Barriers”
The Delhi High Court underscored that the purpose of custody parole is to permit prisoners to attend pressing humanitarian obligations, such as:
- Funerals or last rites,
- Life-threatening illness of a close family member, or
- Other emergencies, under strict supervision.
The Court added that although the presumption of innocence applies until conviction, the gravity of the charges under the UAPA and IPC cannot be ignored while exercising discretion on parole matters.
Holding that the circumstances did not meet the threshold for emergent parole under Rule 1203 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates A. Nowfal, Shaikh Saipan, Md. Arif Hussain
Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, Special Public Prosecutor Vikas Walia, Assistant Special Public Prosecutor Jatin, Advocate Amit Rohila
Case Title:
Mohamed Ali Jinnah v. National Investigation Agency
CRL.M.C. 7709/2025
READ ORDER
