Delhi High Court
Administrative and Public LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

The Director General of Prisons must decide representations on parole credit and semi-open prison placement.

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi)

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: October 13, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
The Director General of Prisons must decide representations on parole credit and semi-open prison placement.. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi). Delhi High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner, who had undergone 21 years of incarceration, sought (i) a direction to be shifted back to a semi-open prison and (ii) a direction that the period from 15 May 2021 to 7 April 2023, spent on emergency parole, be counted towards his sentence.

Source reference: p.1–2

A delay in surrendering after emergency parole had previously led to his re-arrest and the issuance of a punishment ticket.

Source reference: p.2

The High Court later held the lapse to be inadvertent, rather than a deliberate attempt to evade custody, and quashed the punishment ticket by order dated 31 October 2025.

Source reference: p.2

The petitioner submitted representations to the prison authorities concerning both matters, but stated that they had not been considered.

Source reference: p.3–5
02

Issues

1. Whether the Director General (Prisons) should be directed to decide the petitioner’s representation seeking his return to a semi-open prison, in light of the prior order quashing the punishment ticket.

Source reference: p.1, p.3, p.5

2. Whether the Director General (Prisons) should be directed to decide the petitioner’s representation seeking sentence credit for the period spent on emergency parole.

Source reference: p.2, p.4–5
03

Law Applied

The petitions invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Source reference: p.1–2

The Court directed the Director General (Prisons) to decide the representations by taking into account its order dated 31 October 2025 and the applicable rules; it did not determine the petitioner’s entitlement to either form of relief on the merits.

Source reference: p.5
04

Reasoning

The earlier order had quashed the punishment ticket after treating the petitioner’s failure to surrender on time as inadvertent rather than a deliberate evasion of custody.

Source reference: p.2

Since the petitioner’s representations remained undecided, the Court considered it appropriate to require the competent prison authority to address them, with due regard to that earlier finding and the applicable rules.

Source reference: p.3–5

The Court did not itself decide whether the petitioner should be transferred to a semi-open prison or receive sentence credit for the parole period.

Source reference: p.5
05

Holding

The Court directed the Director General (Prisons) to decide both representations, taking into account the order dated 31 October 2025 and the applicable rules.

The petitions and pending applications were disposed of on that basis.

Source reference: p.5
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Vijay Kumar @ VijayvsThe State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi)

Delhi High Court · October 13, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment