Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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

 

Latest Legal News