Parveen @ Naveen @ Vicky v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside of the order reference no. F.18/05/2023/HG/1368 dated 16.05.2025 vide which his application seeking parole was rejected, and writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 04 weeks on the ground of filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for maintaining social ties.

2. The petition discloses that the petitioner herein is presently confined in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi, as he was convicted in case arising out of FIR No. 211/2010, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC. He was convicted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 31.07.2019, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act. The petitioner herein had assailed his conviction before this Court by way of CRL.A. 1448/2019, however, the same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 14.11.2022.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application seeking parole with the competent authority on 16.04.2025, on ground of filing of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which came to be rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 16.05.2025.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction already stands dismissed, and to avail the last and final remedy for assailing his conviction, he wishes to file SLP. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein has already undergone about 14 years of sentence without remission, and his jail conduct for the last 2 years is satisfactory. It is also contended that previously, the parole application of the petitioner was rejected and he had filed a writ petition before this Court [W.P.(Crl.)845/2025] wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s application for parole afresh since two years had lapsed since the last punishment was awarded to the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted parole for filing SLP and establishing social ties.

5. The learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State argues to the contrary and states that impugned rejection order has been passed in accordance with law by the respondent/competent authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been granted major punishments in the year 2022 and 2023. It is also contended that the petitioner herein is involved in 08 other criminal cases (as per SCRB data) and there are high chances that he would abscond if granted parole. Thus, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and has perused the material placed on record.

7. This Court has also perused the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the competent authority, whereby the parole sought by the petitioner herein has been declined. The said order is reproduced as under: “Sir, With reference to the proposal in respect of the above said convict for grant of parole received in this office vide letter no F.[1] 4/SCJ-14/AS(CT)/PAROLE/2025/1352, Dated-16.04.2025, it is to inform that after due consideration, the Pr. Secretary (Home) rejected the same in view of the following’-

(i) As per nominal roll, his overall jail conduct is reported to be unsatisfactory.

(ii) Two other cases are also pending against the said convict.

(iii) Further, as per pervious police report, it is stated that he is a habitual offender. As per SCRB report, 09 cases registered against the said convict. It is requested that the convict may be informed accordingly”.

8. Thus, the petitioner’s plea for parole has been rejected on the ground that the overall jail conduct of the petitioner is unsatisfactory, and other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and that he is a habitual offender.

9. To appreciate the rival contentions, this Court has perused the Nominal Roll placed on record. The same reveals that the jail conduct of the petitioner for the last one year is satisfactory. The overall jail conduct is reported as unsatisfactory, but the same is due to two jail punishments awarded to the petitioner in years 2022 and

2023. However, concededly, no punishment has been awarded to the petitioner after 26.02.2023 and his conduct for the last 2 ½ years has been satisfactory. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in order dated 03.04.2025 passed in W.P.(Crl.) 845/2025, had also observed that “two years since the said punishment has now lapsed” – in view of which the competent authority was directed to consider the said writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner for seeking parole.

10. Insofar as the other criminal involvements of the petitioner are concerned, this Court notes that a total of nine FIRs, including the present one, were registered against the petitioner between the period 1997 to 2010. The present case, in which the petitioner stands convicted, pertains to an FIR registered in 2010, and it is significant that no FIR has been registered against him thereafter. Out of the remaining eight cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in five, and in respect of the other three, either no case status is available or there appears to be a discrepancy in the records. To put it succinctly, apart from the present case, there is no other conviction against the petitioner and he either stands acquitted in other cases or the entire records are unavailable. Accordingly, rejection of the petitioner’s parole on the ground of his involvement in multiple criminal cases is without merit.

11. Further, as on date, the present petitioner fulfills the criteria prescribed under Rule 1210 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 as the said Rule prescribes criteria to be eligible for release on parole. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under: “Rule 1210 sub rule (II): - The conduct of the Prisoner who has been awarded major punishment for any prison offence should have been uniformly good for last two years from the date of application and the conduct of Prisoner who has been awarded minor punishment or no punishment for any prison offence in prison should have been uniformly good for last one year from the date of application.”