UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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

 

Latest Legal News