MAHENDER vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Judgment text excerpt

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.07.2025 + W.P.(CRL) 1277/2025 MAHENDER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Insp. Mahesh Kumar and SI Yogesh Sharma, PS Subhas Place CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has assailed order dated 16.01.2025 of the competent authority whereby his application for release on parole for a period of 60 days was dismissed. The petitioner also seeks grant of parole for 60 days after setting aside the impugned order. The petition is strongly opposed by the State, referring to the nominal rolls and the impugned order. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned ASC for the State. 2. Broadly speaking, the parole application of the petitioner was dismissed by the competent authority on three grounds. Firstly, the petitioner was awarded a major punishment dated 17.01.2023, so in view of Rule 1210(II) of Delhi Prisons Rules, effect of that major punishment would continue till 16.01.2025, prior to which the parole application was filed. W.P.(CRL) 1277/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally Signed KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.23 16:44:48 +05'30' By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:23.07.2025 17:42:23 Secondly, the petitioner violated the conditions of emergency parole granted earlier, so vide Rule 1210(IV) of the Delhi Prisons Rules, he cannot be granted parole. Thirdly, since the petitioner did not surrender within time after his release on previous parole, in view of Rule 1211(III) of the Delhi Prisons Rules, he is not entitled to parole. 3. The misconduct alleged related to the above mentioned three grounds i