Plea for parole can be considered even if appeal against conviction pending before Supreme Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that there is no bar on the consideration of parole or furlough while the convict’s appeal or special leave petition (SLP) against conviction and sentence is pending before the Supreme Court [Budhi Singh v State of NCT of Delhi].

A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma said that the power to suspend sentence and grant bail is distinct from power to grant furlough. 

“Thus, while appeals are pending before a higher forum, grant of parole and furlough can be considered as per the applicable prison rules by the jail authorities,” the Bench ruled. 

However, it clarified that whether parole should be granted depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 

“There could be a situation wherein the Supreme Court may have specifically refused to grant suspension of sentence or refused bail to a particular convict. In such cases a deeper scrutiny would be required by the prison authorities as to whether parole or furlough could be granted to the convict… The authorities would have to bear in mind the non-grant of suspension or bail by the Supreme Court or other relevant circumstances and the same may have an impact on the consideration of parole/furlough.”

The Court rendered these findings while dealing with a batch of petitions seeking furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, during the pendency of their appeals before the Supreme Court against conviction.

A single-judge was earlier dealing with the plea but referred the case to the Division Bench.

The single-judge framed questions on whether a prisoner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are violated when the Delhi Prison Rules bar them from applying for furlough during the pendency of appeals before the Supreme Court. 

After considering the case, the Division Bench ruled that Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules cannot be interpreted as barring the prisoners’ from applying for furlough during the pendency of their appeals. 

It further ruled that jurisprudence on parole can be applied to furlough. 

“Being conscious of the fact that there is divergent opinion between different High Courts and also considering the significance of the questions raised in this Reference, this Court deems appropriate to grant Certificate of Appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 132/134A of the Constitution of India,” the Bench added. 

It also appreciated the work of Senior Advocate Vivek Sood and advocate VP Garg who acted as amici curiae in the matter. 

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur along with advocates Aman Panwar, Akash Panwar, Abhinav Kumar and Sarthak Maggon appeared for Budhi Singh. 

Advocates Rohan J Alva and Anant Sanghi represented Suresh Chand Sharma, Karambir and Hambir Singh. 

Advocate Arjun Malik appeared for Jai Pal Singh. 

Basant Vallabh was represented through advocates Zeeshan Diwan, Harsha and Akshat Jain. 

Advocate Arjun Malik appeared for Ramesh. 

Lokesh was represented by advocates Tanya Agarwal and Gaurav Kalra. 

Advocate Biswajit Kumar Patra appeared for Kishan Lal. 

Advocate Archit Upadhyay appeared for Inderjeet. 

Yogesh Sharma was represented by advocate Siddharth Yadav. 

State of NCT of Delhi was represented through Additional Standing Counsels (Criminal) Rahul Tyagi, Amol Sinha, and Rupali Bandhopadhya, as well as advocates Jatin, Mathew M Philip, Sangeet Sibou, Kshitiz Garg, Nitish Dhawan, Ashvini Kumar Sanskriti Nimbekar and Abhijeet Kumar. 

[Read Judgment]