Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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