MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Right to File SLP Crucial: Delhi High Court Grants Conditional Parole to Convict

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has granted conditional parole to Amit Gulia, convicted of multiple offenses including murder, allowing him to engage counsel for filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's decision highlights the significance of a convict's right to legal representation, with parole granted under stringent conditions to ensure compliance with Delhi Prison Rules.

Background: Amit Gulia, currently serving a life sentence for offenses under Sections 302, 326, 452, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, had his parole application initially rejected by the competent authority, citing unsatisfactory conduct in 2022. Gulia, however, has shown satisfactory behavior over the past year and sought parole to file an SLP against his conviction. The co-convict, Bharat Bhardwaj, was also granted parole for the same purpose, necessitating a staggered parole period to comply with prison regulations.

Importance of Legal Representation: The court emphasized the convict's right to pursue legal remedies through chosen counsel. "The right to file a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s dismissal of a criminal appeal is crucial and cannot be denied," stated Justice Sharma, underscoring the inadequacy of relying solely on free legal aid in jail.

Compliance with Delhi Prison Rules: The decision carefully considered the conduct of the petitioner, Amit Gulia, under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Despite earlier misconduct, the court noted a year of satisfactory behavior. "The petitioner’s conduct has been satisfactory in the last year, fulfilling the criteria under Rule 1210," the judgment observed, highlighting the absence of punishments post-2022.

Simultaneous Parole of Co-Convicts: Addressing the issue of simultaneous parole for co-convicts, the court referred to Rule 1212, which generally restricts such provisions. The court ensured that Gulia’s parole would commence only after the co-convict, Bharat Bhardwaj, surrenders, maintaining compliance with the rule while accommodating exceptional circumstances.

Legal Reasoning: The judgment meticulously discussed the conditions under which parole could be granted. Rule 1208 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, lists filing an SLP as a valid ground for parole. "The competent authority must consider parole applications on grounds such as filing an SLP, ensuring convicts can pursue their legal rights," the court noted, stressing the alignment of parole with legal provisions.

Justice Sharma remarked, "Denying parole based on the availability of free legal aid in jail undermines the convict’s right to a fair legal process. It is crucial to afford them the opportunity to engage counsel of their choice for filing an SLP."

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court's decision to grant conditional parole underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding convicts' legal rights while ensuring compliance with prison regulations. This judgment sets a precedent, highlighting the balance between strict adherence to rules and accommodating legal necessities. The conditional parole granted to Amit Gulia not only reaffirms the importance of the right to legal representation but also emphasizes the judiciary's role in ensuring fair legal processes for convicts.

Date of Decision: May 30, 2024

Amit Gulia @ Andal vs. State of NCT of Delhi

 

Latest Legal News