Jagdish vs State Gnct Of Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29.10.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010487182026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3186/2026
JAGDISH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Chetan Bhardwaj &
Ms.Priyal Bhardwaj, Advs.

versus

STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, Sr. Adv. &
Mr.Aman Usman, APP with
Mr.Abhinav Kumar &
Mr.Aryan Sachdeva, Advs.
along with Insp. Manmeet
Singh, PS Karol Bagh, Asst.
Supdt. Sandeep Mallik, Jail
No.14, Mandoli Jail.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHARDWAJ


NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for a Writ in the nature of
Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner in
light of completion of sentence in the case in FIR No. 623/2014 under
Sections 326A/326B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short „IPC‟)
registered at P.S. Karol Bagh, Delhi.
2. The petition is premised on the submission that the petitioner,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3186/2026 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:46:06

having been convicted of offences under Sections 326A/326B of the
IPC, was sentenced by an order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the Court
of the learned Special Judge-2, NDPS, Central District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10
years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section
326A of the IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment
for one month, under Section 326B of the IPC. It was directed that
both sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal, being Crl. A. No.
283/2017, which was dismissed vide a judgment dated 12.11.2020 of
this Court.
4. As per the nominal roll, the petitioner has already undergone
custody of 7 years, 7 months and 3 days as on 27.10.2026, earning a
remission of 1 year, 6 months and 13 days.
5. It is submitted that, in terms of notification bearing No.
F.No.18/191/2015/HG/1428-1438 dated 27.03.2020, the petitioner, on
being released on emergency parole during COVID-19 pandamic, is
entitled to seek exclusion of the period from 15.06.2021 to 07.12.2024
(his date of re-arrest), that is, 3 years 5 months and 20 days, towards
his custody period.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Lao, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent, submits that the petitioner was granted emergency
parole for a period of eight weeks with effect from 15.06.2021,
whereafter the same was extended from time to time till 07.04.2023.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3186/2026 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:46:06

The petitioner failed to surrender on expiry of the period of such
extension, and was re-arrested only on 07.12.2024. He was issued a
punishment ticket bearing No. 660 dated 07.12.2024 for having failed
to surrender within time. The same was approved by the District and
Sessions Judge, but has been set aside by the learned Single Judge of
this Court, vide order dated 01.09.2026 passed in W.P. (CRL.) No.
3189/2025. He submits that, in terms of the circular bearing No. 4535
dated 29.10.2021 issued by the Competent Authority, PHQ, Tihar, the
petitioner, having failed to surrender in time, is not entitled for
counting of the period of emergency parole towards his custody
period.
7. He submits that, even otherwise, the conduct of the petitioner in
jail has been unsatisfactory and multiple punishments tickets have
been issued against him.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
9. In terms of Notification dated 27.03.2020, issued by the Home
Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, the
period of emergency parole (at that time, only eight weeks) was to be
counted towards the sentence of the prisoner. We may quote the
relevant paragraphs of the said Notification as under:-
“ 3. Now, therefore , the Government. of
National Capital Territory of Delhi, keeping in
mind the emergent situation of threat of
COVID-19 epidemic in Delhi Prisons, and in
exercise of powers conferred under Rule 1212
A (inserted in the main Rules vide gazette
Notification No F.18/191/2015/HG/1379-1392
dated 23.03.2020) of the Delhi Prisons Rules
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3186/2026 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:46:06

2018, has decided to grant upto eight weeks
emergency parole, which shall be counted
towards the sentence of the prisoners.”

10. It is admitted that the emergency parole granted to the petitioner
stood extended till 07.04.2023. Therefore, in terms of the above
Notification, the period till 07.04.2023 was to be counted towards the
period undergone by the petitioner.
11. The circular bearing No. 4535 dated 29.10.2021, however,
provides as under:-
“The convicts who violates the terms and
conditions of emergency parole and re-
arrested by the police in another case or same
case. In that case the period spent by the
convict outside jail on emergency parole shall
not be counted towards the sentence if there
are sufficient evidence that the no surrender is
intentional ad mala fide with an intention to
evade the remaining period of sentence.”

12. Mr. Lao, the learned senior counsel for the respondent, has
submitted that, as the petitioner had failed to surrender on expiry of
the period of emergency parole and came to be re-arrested only on
07.12.2024, he is not entitled for counting of the period spent by him
outside the jail on emergency parole towards his sentence.
13. We are unable to accept the above submissions of Mr. Lao for
the reason that in terms of the Circular dated 29.10.2021, it is only
where the failure to surrender on the part of the convict “ is intentional
and mala fide with an intention to evade the remaining period of
sentence ” that the convict will not be able to have the period of
emergency parole counted towards the period of his imprisonment. In
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3186/2026 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:46:06

the present case, for the failure of the petitioner to surrender within
time, the respondent had issued a punishment ticket. The same came
to be challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. (CRL.)
No. 3189/2025, titled Jagdish v. State of GNCT of Delhi . A learned
Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 01.09.2026, set aside the
punishment ticket, by observing as under:
“5. This Court has previously set aside
punishment tickets awarded to convicts for a
failure to surrender during the COVID-19
pandemic, having regard both to the genuine
confusion that then prevailed regarding
surrender dates and to the non-observance of
the mandatory procedural safeguards
prescribed by the Prison Rules. For reference,
in Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court
set aside the punishment ticket awarded to the
convict for a 21-day late surrender following
the expiration of his COVID-19 emergency
parole, holding that the jail authorities failed
to follow the mandatory procedural
safeguards, such as issuing a written
showcause notice and conducting an inquiry
as prescribed under Rules 1272 and 1273 of
the Prison Rules. Similarly, in Vikram Pal v.
State (NCT of Delhi)3, this Court set aside
punishment tickets on the ground that the
punishment had not been placed for judicial
appraisal within the time stipulated by Rules
1272 and 1273 of the Prison Rules, and that
the explanation tendered for the delay in
surrender was plausible.

6. Considering the aforesaid, in the
present case the failure of the petitioner to
surrender is attributable to the confusion that
prevailed regarding surrender dates during
the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is nothing
on record to suggest that the overstay was
deliberate, or that any offence was committed
by the petitioner during that period. On a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3186/2026 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:46:06

parity with the view previously taken by this
Court, and having regard also to the belated
judicial appraisal of the impugned punishment
ticket, the Court is of the view that the
impugned punishment ticket cannot be
sustained.

7. In view of the aforesaid, Punishment
Ticket No. 660 dated 07.12.2024 is set aside.”

(Emphasis supplied)

14. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, found that the failure
of the petitioner to surrender on expiry of the period of emergency
parole, was due to confusion that prevailed regarding the date of
surrender during the COVID-19 pandemic and there was nothing on
record to suggest that his overstay was deliberate.
15. In view of the above finding, the bar contained in the circular
dated 29.10.2021 cannot operate against the petitioner.
16. At the same time, the petitioner can avail of the period only
between 15.06.2021 and 07.04.2023, that is, the period of emergency
parole granted to him, for being counted towards his sentence.
17. We, therefore, dispose of this petition by directing the Jail
Superintendent to immediately rework the period of sentence already
undergone by the petitioner, along with the remission earned by him,
taking into account his period of emergency parole between
15.06.2021 and 07.04.2023 and treating it as the period undergone.
This exercise must be completed within two days from the receipt of a
copy of this order.
18. On above exercise, in case the petitioner is found to have
already completed his sentence, he shall be forthwith released,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3186/2026 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:46:06

otherwise, he shall be informed of the manner in which the period of
his sentence has been calculated and the remaining period of sentence
that he has to undergo. If the finding of the Jail Superintendent is that
the petitioner has to undergo further sentence, it shall be open to the
petitioner, if so advised, to challenge the said finding in accordance
with law.
19. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J


ARUN BHARDWAJ, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ rv/hn
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3186/2026 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:46:06