High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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

 

Similar News