Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Parole is a Wing of Reformative Process: Delhi High Court Grants Parole to Bangladeshi Life Convict After 17 Years

18 November 2024 2:20 PM

By: sayum


The Delhi High Court has granted parole to Jahangir @ Ekka @ Ibrahim, a Bangladeshi national serving life imprisonment, highlighting the significance of reformation and maintaining familial relations. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the objectives of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, in facilitating a convict’s reintegration into society.

Jahangir, currently confined in Tihar Central Jail, was convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act in FIR No. 254/2003 and under Sections 395/397 IPC in FIR No. 41/2011. His appeals against these convictions were dismissed in 2009 and 2014, respectively. Having served over 17 years in prison, Jahangir sought parole to reconnect with his family and address personal matters.

The court underscored the reformative intent behind parole, stating, “Parole and Furlough to inmates are progressive measures of correctional services. The release of prisoner on parole not only saves him from the evils of incarceration but also enables him to maintain social relations with his family and community.”

Jahangir’s satisfactory conduct during his imprisonment was pivotal in the court’s decision. The court noted, “During the entire period of more than 17 years and 06 months of actual custody, the conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory in the jail.” The petitioner had worked as a langar sahayak and had not committed any prison offenses during his incarceration.

The court acknowledged the verification of the petitioner’s sister’s residence in Delhi. Jahangir’s commitment to reside with his sister during the parole period was confirmed by the police’s verification of her identity and address.

Justice Sharma emphasized the balance between state security and the convict’s rights. “This Court has to balance the rights of the State as well as the rights of a convict, especially in cases where the period of incarceration exceeds 17 years,” she stated. The court referred to the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which advocate for parole to help inmates maintain self-confidence, develop a sense of hope, and stay connected with societal developments.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, “The release of prisoner on parole motivates him to maintain good conduct and remain disciplined in the prison.”

The Delhi High Court’s decision to grant parole to Jahangir underscores the judiciary’s commitment to the reformation and rehabilitation of convicts. This judgment reaffirms the principles enshrined in the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, aiming to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into society by allowing them to maintain familial and social ties. Jahangir’s case highlights the court’s balanced approach in considering both the rights of the state and the individual, setting a precedent for future parole petitions.

Date of Decision: July 26, 2024

Latest Legal News