Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

Similar News