Being In Jail Doesn't Reduce Status To Chattel: Delhi HC Rebukes Jail Authority For Repeating Grounds To Deny Parole To Murder Convict

Noting that right to life is also available to convicts, the judge stated, “It cannot be overlooked that he has been in jail for more than 20 years; may be for a crime that he has committed but that does not denude him of his basic Right to Life. Merely because he is confined to jail, does not reduce his status to that of a chattel, bereft of any basic Fundamental Human Rights. It is high time that the Jail Authorities demonstrate a little more sensitivity in dealing with such matters.”

The Court was considering the petitioner's plea seeking parole for period of four weeks. The petitioner was convicted for offences of murder and rape and sentenced to life imprisonment wherein he had already spent more than 20 years in jail.

The petitioner submitted that he availed parole/furlough many times and that he only surrendered late only once during Emergency Parole in COVID-19. He stated that the delay in surrender was because he had no knowledge of the date of surrender. In January 2024, in a similar petition, the High Court had granted parole to the petitioner and rejected the ground of jail authorities for denying his parole based on late surrender during covid.

In the present case, the jail authorities once again rejected his parole on the ground that he surrendered later in an emergency parole during Covid-19. 

The high court first observed that the "most glaring aspect" which emerged in the matter is that despite the convict filing a plea for parole in November 2024, the same was not decided within the "mandated one month period". In fact, the court said, it took a Writ Petition and a Notice by the high court, for the Jail Authorities to decide the plea "and that too in the most arbitrary way, only because of this present Writ Petition".

Taking strong exception to rejection of parole on the ground in question, the high court observed that once it has rejected the ground for denying the parole, the jail authorities cannot insist on making the same a ground for rejection again.

“Once, the Court has specifically observed that this is not a valid ground for denying Parole, the insistence to persist in making this as a ground of rejection of Parole every time compelling the Petitioner to come to the Court, is neither warranted nor appreciated. The Jail administration must be conscious and aware of the Orders being made by the Court and follow them scrupulously,” it remarked.

The Court further noted the petitioner's nominal roll did not show any unsatisfactory conduct. It noted that the petitioner attempted suicide in 2022 and remarked that instead of taking into account his mention condition, the jail authorities ignored his plea for parole.

“The Jail Authorities must be aware and conscious that an attempt to suicide reflects a mental condition; rather it should have rung the alarm bell that the convict needs to maintain the social ties for his mental health. Instead of appreciating his mental condition, to treat the same as a crime and to issue a “warning”, reflects again the scant understanding of the Jail Administration regarding the plight of the Petitioner.” it stated.

The parole was also rejected on the grounds that the request was generic, stating repair of his house and for arranging funds. Noting that the jail authorities should have made efforts to verify the reasons for seeking parole, the Court commented, “Instead of merely terming it as generic, little more effort on the part of the Jail administration, to at least try to verify the reasons given by him, would have been more appreciable. Even otherwise, the Parole is granted to establish social ties, which at least should have weighed with the Jail Authorities, to consider his Application of Parole. It is indeed a very unhappy situation where time and again the Petitioner is being pushed to approach the Court, for grant of Parole.”

The Court thus directed the release of petitioner on parole for 4 weeks subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the like amount along with adherence to certain conditions. 

Case title: Mohd Sheikh Noor Hussain vs. State NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 458