One Year Imprisonment Requirement For Parole Not Absolute; Delhi High Court Grants Relaxation For Filing SLP
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the petitioner must be released on one-week parole, finding that the one-year imprisonment requirement under the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute and may be eased when compelling circumstances arise, including the need to approach the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition . The Court noted that rigid enforcement of this criterion could impede a convict’s fundamental or statutory rights. The dispute centred on the petitioner’s request for parole to pursue legal remedy and attend to immediate family needs, which the Court accepted as special grounds. While the conviction for robbery and related offences stood undisturbed, limited parole was granted subject to safeguards.
The petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 392, 411, and 34 of the IPC. He was sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. At the time of approaching the Court, he had undergone a little over one year of incarceration including remission. The conviction arose from an FIR registered in 2016, and the appellate court later upheld both the conviction and sentence.
The petitioner sought parole for the purpose of filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court through counsel of his choice and to maintain family contact. His application before the Home Department was rejected on the ground that he had not completed the minimum one-year imprisonment requirement prescribed under Rule 1210 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The petitioner argued that filing an SLP constituted a special circumstance and that this rule could not restrict his ability to pursue legal remedies.
The State contended that the petitioner remained ineligible for parole as he had completed only nine months of actual imprisonment, excluding remission, and had shown no exceptional grounds for relaxation. It was also submitted that two other criminal cases were pending against him and that there existed a possibility of him absconding or reoffending if released. The nominal roll placed on record reflected his conduct in jail and the period of incarceration undergone.
The Court recorded that “A convict is not barred from seeking parole, as discretion has been vested in the Competent Authority to grant parole to such convict under ‘special circumstances’ like serious illness of a close relative, death in family etc.” It stated that the Competent Authority must keep in mind the objectives under Rule 1200, quoting them in full.
Discussing the petitioner’s ground for parole, the Court stated: “It is the right of a citizen to effectively pursue his legal remedy in the last court of justice in the country by filing SLP through a counsel of his own choice which is a valuable right.” It observed: “This cannot be withheld merely on the basis of his past conduct or on the ground that free legal aid is available and that SLP can be filed from the jail itself.” It further recorded: “Needless to say, availing his legal remedy in the Apex Court of the country is the right of the petitioner and this Court is not inclined to withdraw the same.”
The Court referred to multiple coordinate bench decisions and stated that they show “it is the Constitutional right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 303 CrPC whereby the accused can engage a counsel of his choice.”
Addressing the petitioner’s family circumstances, the Court stated: “It is well settled that parole is an established facet aimed at enabling a convict to maintain family and social ties and to discharge essential obligations.” It then observed: “In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the rigour of Rule 1210 must give way to the humanitarian necessity in the instant case.” It added: “To deny parole despite existence of a humanitarian ground would amount to a mechanical application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying parole jurisprudence.”
On the one-year stipulation under Rule 1210, the Court stated: “The criteria of one year incarceration is not absolute. It can be relaxed where strict application would result in denial of a fundamental or statutory right.” The Court recorded: “Thus, the 01 year stipulation under Rule 1210(I) cannot override the petitioner’s constitutional right of access to justice.”
The Court stated: “Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner Nadeem is directed to be released on parole for a period of 01 week from the date of release, subject to the following conditions.”
It directed that the petitioner furnish a personal bond and surety, reside only at the address mentioned in the memo of parties, report to the concerned SHO on specified days, provide his mobile number to authorities, refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and surrender after completion of parole. “It is made clear that breach of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of parole forthwith.” The petition was “disposed of in the above terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr. Akash Sachan, Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Ms. Charu Sinha, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates, with SI Shubham, PS Gandhi Nagar
Case Title: Nadeem v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 3627/2025
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
