Delhi HC Credits Convict’s COVID Parole Through April 2023 Toward Sentence, Since Pandemic Confusion Explained His Late Surrender

Jagdish was convicted under Sections 326A and 326B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to concurrent terms of ten and five years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively, with fines.

His appeal was dismissed.

He was released on emergency parole from 15 June 2021, with the parole extended until 7 April 2023, but did not surrender then and was re-arrested on 7 December 2024.

A punishment ticket for his failure to surrender was later set aside by a Single Judge, who found that the overstay was attributable to confusion over surrender dates during the COVID-19 pandemic and was not shown to be deliberate.

Jagdish sought credit for the period spent on emergency parole towards his sentence.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Under the GNCT of Delhi notification dated 27 March 2020, issued pursuant to Rule 1212A of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, the period of emergency parole was to count towards a prisoner’s sentence.

The circular dated 29 October 2021 excluded time spent outside prison on emergency parole only where there was sufficient evidence that the failure to surrender was intentional and mala fide, with the purpose of evading the remaining sentence.

The Court also relied on the prior judicial finding setting aside Jagdish’s punishment ticket, which found no evidence of deliberate overstay.

The Court held that the 27 March 2020 notification required the emergency-parole period to be credited towards Jagdish’s sentence.

Because his parole was extended until 7 April 2023, that period—not the subsequent time until his re-arrest—qualified for credit.

The circular did not defeat that entitlement: its exclusion applied only where intentional, mala fide non-surrender was established.

The Single Judge’s finding that Jagdish’s failure to surrender arose from pandemic-related confusion, with no evidence of deliberate overstay, meant that the circular’s bar did not apply.

If the recalculation showed that he had completed his sentence, he was to be released forthwith; otherwise, he was to be informed of the calculation and remaining sentence, with liberty to challenge that determination in accordance with law.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.