MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Delhi High Court Grants Parole for Convicted Father to Accompany Son for Board Examinations: Balancing State Interest with Parental Responsibility

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has granted parole to Vijay Dahiya, a life-term convict, to enable him to accompany his son for board examinations. This decision emphasizes the balance between the state’s interests in securing a conviction and the inherent parental responsibilities towards a child’s welfare, particularly in the context of educational needs.

The petitioner, Vijay Dahiya, currently serving a life sentence in Tihar Jail, was convicted under Sections 302/120B/34 of IPC. He filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking release on parole to accompany his son for board examinations. Despite two court orders for expedited decision on his parole application, the respondent had not decided on the matter, leading to the current petition.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed the importance of the petitioner’s presence for his son’s board examinations, acknowledging the significance of parental involvement in a child’s education. The court noted that the petitioner’s wife was unable to accompany their son due to caring for another minor child, thereby necessitating the petitioner’s presence. The court balanced the interests of the state with the petitioner’s responsibilities towards his child’s academic pursuits, recognizing that the petitioner had not misused his liberty in previous instances of interim bail and furlough.

The court granted parole to Vijay Dahiya for one month under specific conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, reporting to the local SHO, providing contact details, and surrendering after the parole period. The decision reflected a nuanced approach to upholding both the state’s interests and individual parental duties.

Date of Decision: February 20, 2024

Vijay Dahiya vs. State of NCT of Delhi

 

Similar News