W.P.(CRL)/2213/2026 of KYAMUDDIN Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI on 13 October 2026

O R D E R

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Home Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, rejecting the petitioner’s request for parole for a period of 4 weeks. The said order reads as under:

2. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC in FIR No. 150/1999 and sentenced to imprisonment for life on 21.09.2000. Thereafter, he was released on bail on 25.01.2001 pending his appeal.

3. The appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 602/2000 was dismissed on 29.03.2016 with a direction to the petitioner to surrender immediately. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner did not surrender despite the said directions and remained at large till he was re- arrested on 29.11.2024 in FIR No. 777/2024, registered at P.S. Nand Nagri, Delhi, and was further convicted under Section 174A IPC.

4. The parole has been rejected on three grounds, namely, (a) the petitioner had absconded after his appeal was dismissed, thereby attracting Rule 1211 sub-rule (iii) of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018; (b) his overall conduct was unsatisfactory as per the nominal roll; and (c) Delhi Prisons has not recommended the grant of parole.

5. On 27.07.2026, this Court directed that a fresh nominal roll be requisitioned from the concerned Jail Superintendent, specifically dealing with the conduct of the petitioner in jail. The fresh nominal roll has thereafter been filed and the same reflects that the petitioner’s jail conduct is satisfactory.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the fresh nominal roll is inconsistent with the record, inasmuch as it does not take into account the petitioner’s failure to surrender for about eight and a half years after his appeal was dismissed.

7. The decision on parole must rest on a complete and correct record. The fact that the petitioner absconded is, no doubt, a serious concern which the authorities are entitled to weigh. At the same time, Rule 1211 itself permits parole in cases where special circumstances exist. The authorities must also take into account his conduct in custody since his re-arrest, as well as his

verified family address.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the following terms:

(a) the order dated 25.06.2026 is set aside; (b) the competent authority shall reconsider the petitioner’s application for parole afresh based on the relevant facts and circumstances and dispose of the same by way of a reasoned order, within a period of 4 weeks from today.

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.

10. The pending application also stands disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 13, 2026/at/sd