Hansraj vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

Court
Delhi High Court

$~106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
# CNR No. DLHC010535072026
Date of Decision : 04.11.2026
W.P.(CRL) 3465/2026
+
HANSRAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Mr. Anmol
Kumar Pandey, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha (ASC) with SI
Balram (P.S. Mangolpuri)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. The petitioner herein is a life convict, and inter alia, seeks the
following relief:

2. The background of the matter is that the petitioner was convicted qua
FIR No. 376/1996 registered at P.S. Mangolpuri under Sections 302/394/
398 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “ IPC ”) and sentenced to life
imprisonment on 05.06.1999. The petitioner’s appeal being CRL.A. No.
771/2026 stood dismissed on 05.11.2009. It is also pointed out that he is
also undergoing life imprisonment in FIR No. 159/2001 registered at P.S.

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3465/2026 Page 1 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:16:42

Tosham, Haryana, District Bhiwani under Sections 302/34 of the IPC.
3. It is further pointed out that vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in
W.P.(CRL.) 2500/2025, this Court noted that the petitioner’s furlough
application has been allowed by the authorities in FIR No. 376/1996 but
release was declined on account of FIR No. 159/2001. Noting the same
objection, this Court has issued specific direction that furlough be granted in
“both the FIRs”. The relevant observations therein are as under:-

4. It is also noticed that vide order dated 08.10.2026 passed in
W.P.(CRL) 2760/2026 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while taking note
of the conduct of the petitioner granted parole in FIR No. 376/1996 , on
conditions stated as under:
“i. The petitioner shall furnish a bail bond to the sum ofRs.1 0,000/- with
a surety of the like amount, who shall be a family member, to the
satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent.
ii. The petitioner shall report to the Station House Officer [SHO] of the
concerned Police Station having jurisdiction over his place of residence
once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 11 :00 AM during
the period of parole.
iii. The petitioner shall reside at the address mentioned in the present
petition during the period of parole.
iv. The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Jail
Superintendent, immediately upon the expiry of the period of parole.

8. The present petition is therefore allowed and disposed of in the

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3465/2026 Page 2 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:16:42

aforesaid terms.”

However, despite the said order, the petitioner has not been released. The
petitioner submits that he has been verbally informed that the reason for the
said denial, is the conviction in FIR No. 159/2001, that however, no written
order to that effect has been given to the petitioner.
5. Given the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of
parole. The order dated 08.10.2026 is an order of this Court granting parole
to the petitioner for four weeks from the date of the release. The State is
bound to give effect to the said order. It appears that the only impediment is
on account of FIR No. 159/2001, which also came to be considered by this
Court on 15.09.2025 wherein, benefit in terms of orders passed by this Court
were extended to both the said FIRs.
6. In Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan 2026 INSC 599 , the Supreme
Court while holding that delaying to release a prisoner after a valid judicial
order such as a parole or permanent release order violates Article 21 of the
Constitution of India observed as under:
,
“ 11 . Having perused the judicial pronouncements as above, we now
move to the main issue at hand i.e., the question of compensation. The
respondent State has opposed the appellant’s reliance on some of these
judgments by contending that they pertained to people under unlawful
detention by the State which the appellant was not since he was in fact in
prison under the due process of law and so these judgments are
distinguishable on facts. We do not find merit in this submission for the
para referred to by us above from Halbury’s Laws of England makes
abundantly clear that habeas corpus would be maintainable against
any form of detention. Once parole had been granted and sureties
produced to the satisfaction of the concerned court, the non-release
becomes illegal detention
. That apart, reference to these judgments is to
establish clearly that payment of compensation is an acceptable and
recognised public law remedy….”
…
12. Having considered instances of award of compensation as above, as

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3465/2026 Page 3 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:16:42

also the discussion preceding that we are of the considered view that the
appellant is entitled to compensation for the twenty-four days of illegal
custody suffered by him at the hands of the respondent State. The liberty
of an individual is not a trivial matter. The State cannot continue
curtailing the same in the face of a court order, on account of its slow
bureaucratic processes of taking decisions whether to file appeals in a
particular matter or not. If such a view is agreed to by us, it would
amount to the liberty of a person being placed sub-par to the decision
whether or not to file an appeal which is purely an administrative
call…

”
7. It is therefore, directed that the petitioner be released on parole for a

period of four weeks from the date of his release in terms of order dated
08.10.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(CRL) 2760/2026 within 48 hours
of the receipt of copy of this order by the Jail Superintendent.
8. The parole shall operate in respect of both FIRs viz . FIR No. 376/1996
and FIR No. 159/2001. The parole shall be on the same terms and
conditions as set out in Paragraph-7 of the order dated 08.10.2026 passed in
W.P.(CRL) 2760/2026.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
through all permissible modes, including electronically, for compliance.


SACHIN DATTA, J
uk/pp
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/


Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3465/2026 Page 4 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
20:16:42