Uncategorized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHi Date of Decision: 03.09.2025

W.P.(CRL) 1620/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
$~5

  • IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    % Date of Decision: 03.09.2025
  • W.P.(CRL) 1620/2025
    SHIVA @ UWAN …..Petitioner
    Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma and Ms.
    Aakanksha Sharma, Advocates
    versus
    STATE NCT OF DELHI …..Respondent
    Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for the
    State with Ms. Nandini Vasundhara,
    Advocate with SI Dharmendra
    CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

  1. Petitioner has assailed Order No. F. 18/43/2018/HG/255 dated
    22.04.2025, whereby his parole application was dismissed by the competent
    authority; petitioner has also sought mandamus to the respondent to release
    him on parole for a period of two months for maintaining family and social
    ties.
  2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned ASC.
  3. Broadly speaking, the competent authority rejected parole application
    of the petitioner on the ground that he was released on parole for two weeks

W.P.(CRL) 1620/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
from 21.03.2020 to 05.04.2020 granted by this Court, which time was
extended during Covid pandemic time to time by the Government; but
finally, the petitioner was arrested in three fresh cases on 22.01.2021. In the
impugned order itself, the competent authority recorded that the petitioner
already stood acquitted in all those three cases. Besides that, another ground
for rejection of parole application was the major punishment awarded to the
petitioner for misconduct in jail. The alleged misconduct was that in jail the
petitioner tested positive for some drug and vide order dated 15.06.2023, he
was awarded punishment of stoppage of mulakat and canteen facility for 15
days.

  1. Admittedly, the major punishment dated 15.06.2023 was never
    challenged and its effect was surviving as on 22.04.2025 when the impugned
    order was passed. That being so, although in view of acquittal of petitioner
    in the said three fresh cases, the impugned order would fail, but in view of
    the unchallenged major punishment dated 15.06.2023, the impugned order
    would sustain.
  2. Also admittedly, now the said major punishment dated 15.06.2023 has
    become stale upon expiry of two years, so now petitioner is entitled to a
    fresh consideration for parole. Therefore, learned ASC in all fairness
    submits that the petitioner may file a fresh parole application and the same
    shall be considered in accordance with law.
  3. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of granting opportunity
    to the petitioner to file a fresh parole application before the jail authorities

W.P.(CRL) 1620/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
and the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, but certainly
within four weeks.

  1. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
    being brought to the notice of the petitioner.

GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 03, 2025
‘rs’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *