Denial of Parole to Perform Parent’s Last Rites Violates Article 21 | Delhi High Court Grants Four-Week Parole Under Rule 1212 of Delhi Prison Rules
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja granted four weeks’ parole to a man convicted in a 2018 rape case, sentenced to 14 years’ rigorous imprisonment and lodged in Tihar Jail, to enable him to perform the last rites of his father. The Court observed that the right to perform a parent’s last rites is an essential religious and moral duty, and denial of parole in such circumstances would infringe the convict’s right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the Court allowed limited parole on humanitarian grounds.
The case was filed by Ajmer Singh alias Pinka, who is serving a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years with a fine of Rs.1,70,000 after conviction under Sections 376, 354B, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act in a case registered in 2018. He is currently confined in Central Jail-02, Tihar Jail, New Delhi.
The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking emergency parole for two months. He stated that his father passed away on 16 September 2025 due to a heart attack, a fact verified by the Investigating Officer. He submitted copies of his father’s death summary and cremation receipt as evidence and stated that as the eldest son, he was required to perform the last rites and related religious ceremonies, including the “Tehravi” scheduled on 26 September 2025.
The petitioner further submitted that he had not availed any spell of parole or furlough during his incarceration and that his conduct in jail, as reflected in the Nominal Roll dated 25 September 2025, was “Satisfactory.”
The State, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel, acknowledged the gravity of the petitioner’s offence but did not oppose temporary release on humanitarian grounds. The State submitted that, as per Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, parole cannot exceed four weeks in one spell.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that “parole is an established facet aimed at enabling a convict to maintain family and social ties and to discharge essential obligations.”
The Court further observed that “the right to perform last rites of a parent is an essential religious and moral duty. Denial of parole in such circumstances would violate the petitioner’s right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Addressing the State’s submission, the Court recorded that “the fact that the petitioner’s father passed away on 16.09.2025 and the final rites/‘Tehravi’ ceremony being scheduled on 26.09.2025 has been duly verified.”
The Court stated that while the offence committed by the petitioner was of a grave and serious nature, “to deny parole in existence of a humanitarian ground would amount to a mechanical application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying parole jurisprudence.”
The Court also took note that “the petitioner has not availed any spell of furlough/parole on any occasion during his period of incarceration and that his conduct has been ‘Satisfactory’.”
Considering these facts and the time-sensitive nature of the request, the Court concluded that the petitioner deserved to be released on parole for a limited period in accordance with Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed the petition and directed that “the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of 04 weeks from the date of release. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.20,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. The petitioner shall reside only at the address mentioned in the memo of parties, report to the SHO, PS Kanjhawala once a week, and shall not attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.”
“Breach of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of parole forthwith.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajbir Singh Bal and Ms. Sanstuti Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, Additional Standing Counsel
Case Title: Ajmer Singh alias Pinka vs. The State of NCT of Delhi through SHO Kanjhawala
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 3146/2025
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
