Prior parole absconding does not bar parole without consideration of special circumstances.

The petitioner, a life convict lodged in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, sought parole to make educational and financial arrangements for his 15-year-old son, whose mother and grandparents had died.

His record included prior late surrenders and a parole jump between 2021 and 2024; after re-arrest, however, he surrendered on time following emergency parole granted in 2025, and his conduct during the preceding year was recorded as satisfactory.

The Home Department rejected his parole application, citing Rule 1211(III) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, his overall unsatisfactory conduct, an adverse address-verification report, and the non-recommendation of prison authorities.

The petitioner challenged that decision before the Delhi High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner’s prior parole violation barred parole or required the competent authority to consider whether special circumstances justified its grant under Rule 1211(III) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

2. Whether the rejection order required reconsideration for failure to address the petitioner’s post-re-arrest conduct, his minor son’s circumstances, and the newly furnished address.

Rule 1211(III) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 provides that parole shall not be granted in specified cases “except if in the discretion of the competent authority special circumstances exist”; accordingly, the restriction is not an absolute bar, and the authority must consider whether special circumstances warrant parole.

The Court relied on Rohit v. The State, W.P.(Crl.) 402/2022, order dated 11 May 2022, and Neeraj Bhatt v. The State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi, W.P.(Crl.) 3071/2022, judgment dated 5 January 2023, which affirmed that the authority must consider and address the asserted special circumstances when deciding an application under the Rule.

The petitioner’s history of jumping parole was an adverse consideration, but it did not eliminate the competent authority’s discretion under Rule 1211(III).

The rejection order did not show that the authority had considered whether special circumstances existed, including the situation of the petitioner’s minor son; nor did it consider the petitioner’s timely surrender after the 2025 emergency parole or assess the newly supplied Bareilly address, whereas the police report related to an earlier address.

The Court therefore found that the decision required reconsideration rather than itself determining the petitioner’s entitlement to parole.

It directed the SHO, Police Station Ashok Vihar, to verify the furnished Bareilly address within two weeks, using the local police if necessary, and directed the competent authority to pass a fresh speaking order within four weeks, considering whether special circumstances exist, the petitioner’s conduct after re-arrest, and his son’s situation.

The petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.