Delhi HC Orders Life Convict’s Release Within 48 Hours On 4-Week Parole Covering Both FIRs

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to release on parole in both FIRs, notwithstanding his sentence in FIR No. 159/2001.

The court held

The Court allowed and disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner’s release on parole for four weeks from the date of release, within 48 hours of the Jail Superintendent receiving the order.

It also directed

The parole applies to both FIR No. 376/1996 and FIR No. 159/2001 and is subject to the same terms and conditions set out in the order dated 8 October 2026.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance.

01Facts

The petitioner was serving life sentences arising from FIR No. 376/1996, registered at P.S. Mangolpuri under Sections 302/394/398 IPC, and FIR No. 159/2001, registered at P.S. Tosham, Haryana, under Sections 302/34 IPC.

pp. 1–2

In an earlier proceeding, the High Court had directed that furlough be granted in both FIRs; subsequently, a Co-ordinate Bench granted him parole in FIR No. 376/1996 for four weeks, subject to specified conditions.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner remained unreleased, reportedly because of his conviction in FIR No. 159/2001, although no written order refusing release had been provided.

p. 3

He sought implementation of the parole order.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to release on parole in both FIRs, notwithstanding his sentence in FIR No. 159/2001.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the State could withhold release after the Court had granted parole, pending administrative consideration of the petitioner’s other conviction.

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Article 21 of the Constitution protects an individual’s liberty, and continued detention contrary to a valid judicial order granting parole may constitute illegal detention.

pp. 3–4

In Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 599, the Supreme Court held that non-release after parole has been granted and the required sureties furnished may amount to illegal detention, and recognised compensation as an available public-law remedy.

pp. 3–4

The Court also relied on its prior orders concerning the petitioner: the order dated 15 September 2025 in W.P.(CRL) 2500/2025, which addressed the effect of both FIRs, and the order dated 8 October 2026 in W.P.(CRL) 2760/2026, which granted parole for four weeks subject to stated conditions.

pp. 2–3

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 394 Section 398 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court found that the 8 October 2026 order had already granted the petitioner parole for four weeks and that the State was bound to give effect to it.

p. 3

The petitioner’s conviction in FIR No. 159/2001 was not a sufficient basis to withhold release, particularly given the earlier order addressing both FIRs.

pp. 2–3

Applying the principle in Daudayal, the Court emphasised that the State could not continue to curtail liberty in the face of a judicial order.

pp. 3–4

05Holding

The Court allowed and disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner’s release on parole for four weeks from the date of release, within 48 hours of the Jail Superintendent receiving the order.

p. 4

The parole applies to both FIR No. 376/1996 and FIR No. 159/2001 and is subject to the same terms and conditions set out in the order dated 8 October 2026.

p. 4

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance.

p. 4

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF