W.P.(CRL)/2712/2026 of GUDDU Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 7 September 2026

O R D E R

% 07.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking following prayer: “a) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby quashing the impugned rejection order bearing No. F.18/13/2026/HG/PRISONS/6754-56 dated 25.06.2026 and direct the Respondents to release the Petitioner on parole for a period of 08 weeks for re-establishing and strengthening his family and social ties, subject to such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in FIR No. 240/1998, u/s 302/392/397/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Mangol Puri, Delhi;

b) Pass any other order or further orders, which this

Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper on the facts and in the interest of justice.”

3. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 23.12.1999 for offences punishable under Sections 302/392/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and was sentenced vide order on sentence dated 04.01.2000 to imprisonment for life, along with other sentences.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has undergone approximately 21 years, 02 months and 23 days of actual incarceration and has earned remission of approximately 04 years, 10 months and 21 days. He claims eligibility for premature release under the Delhi Government Remission Policy dated 16.04.2004.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application dated 20.01.2026 seeking parole for a period of eight weeks for re-establishing and strengthening his family and social ties. As the application was not decided within the prescribed period, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P. (CRL.) No. 1468/2026. During the pendency thereof, the respondents informed the Court that the application had been rejected vide order dated 25.06.2026, principally on the ground of the petitioner’s alleged non-surrender after his release on interim bail in 2003, a punishment dated 26.04.2025 and absence of recommendation by the concerned prison authorities. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is against the aforesaid rejection order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged non-surrender pertains to the year 2003 and, despite the said incident, the petitioner was subsequently granted furlough by this Court on three occasions in 2024 and 2025, which were duly availed without any allegation of misuse.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has remained in incarceration for a substantial period and seeks parole for eight weeks solely for the purpose of re-establishing and strengthening his family and social ties. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

8. The court has heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

9. The only instance relied upon against the petitioner is his alleged non- surrender after release on interim bail in the year 2003. More than two decades have elapsed since the said incident. In the intervening period, the petitioner has been granted furlough by this Court on three occasions and, significantly, has duly surrendered on each occasion.

10. The subsequent conduct of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be disregarded while considering his present application for parole merely by mechanically relying upon an isolated incident dating back to the year 2003.

11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the substantial passage of time since the solitary instance of non-surrender in the year 2003 and the petitioner’s subsequent conduct in duly surrendering after being released on furlough on three occasions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be granted an opportunity for temporary release on parole.

12. In these circumstances, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is inclined to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of eight weeks from the date of his release from jail, subject to the following terms and conditions:

i. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, who shall be a family member, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent concerned.

ii. The petitioner shall report to the SHO concerned of the local area once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM during the period of parole.

iv. The petitioner shall reside at the address mentioned in the present petition during the period of parole. v. The petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent, immediately after the expiry of the period of parole.

13. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.

15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/prg/RM