-
by Admin
17 February 2026 2:34 PM
In a significant judgment dated April 10, 2024, the High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, dismissed a petition seeking parole filed by Banarsi Lal @ Gobra, underlining the legal principle that parole cannot be granted during the pendency of an appeal when an alternative remedy of seeking suspension of sentence and interim bail under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. is available.
Legal Point of the Judgment: The judgment emphasized that the grant of parole is not maintainable during the pendency of a statutory appeal, and highlighted the appellate court’s powers in parole decisions.
Facts and Issues of the Case: Banarsi Lal, convicted under Section 304 Part I and Section 323 IPC, sought parole to attend his brother’s marriage. His appeal is currently pending before the Delhi High Court.
Court’s Assessment:Distinction Between Parole and Furlough: The court clarified the distinction, noting that parole is a temporary release not counted towards the sentence, while in furlough, the sentence continues during the release period.
Executive Power in Granting Parole: The judgment reiterated that the State cannot exercise powers to grant parole during the pendency of an appeal, as per Rule 1209 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
Judicial Interpretation of Parole Rules: The court referenced Rule 1209, barring parole during the pendency of an appeal, emphasizing the importance of the appellate court’s role in such decisions.
Alternative Remedies for Convicts: The judgment pointed out that convicts have the option to seek interim bail or suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of an appeal.
Decision: The petition for parole was dismissed, with the court granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application for suspension of sentence and interim bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in the pending appeal.
Date of Decision: April 10, 2024.
Banarsi Lal @ Gobra versus State of NCT of Delhi,
