It is absolutely in the fitness of things that while striking the
right chord and upholding the fundamental right of a prisoner to get parole to
conduct parents’ last rites, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable,
landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ajmer Singh alias Pinka vs The
State of NCT of Delhi through SHO Kanjawala in W.P.(Crl) 3146/2025 that
was pronounced as recently as on 25.09.2025 has minced just no words at all to
hold in no uncertain terms that, “The right to perform the last rites of a
parent is an essential religious and moral duty, and denial of parole to a
convict to conduct the same would violate his fundamental right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution.” It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench
comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ravinder Dudeja who authored this most
commendable, courageous and creditworthy judgment underscored that even though
the man seeking parole in the case was convicted for the serious offence of
rape, denying parole on humanitarian grounds would defeat the underlying
objective of parole jurisprudence. We thus see that in this leading case, the
Bench granted four weeks of parole to a convict named Ajmer Singh alias Pinka
who is currently serving a 14-year sentence for rape to attend his father’s
funerals and related rituals. It was also noted by the Bench that he had not
availed any parole or furlough earlier and his jail conduct was recorded as
satisfactory. So his case was found to be a fit case for granting parole by
Delhi High Court. Absolutely right!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced
judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1
that, “This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read
with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus
for grant of emergency parole to the petitioner for a period of 02 months, to
enable him to perform the last rites of his deceased father, attend to family
obligations, and re-establish his social and familial ties.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 2 disclosing that,
“Petitioner was convicted in case FIR No. 139/2018, PS Kanjhawala, under
Sections 376/354B/506 IPC and Section 66E of IT Act and vide order on sentence
dated 24.04.2025, he has been sentenced to undergo:-
i. RI for 14 years
alongwith fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 06 months for
offence under section 376 IPC
ii. RI for 05 years
alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 01 month for
offence under section 354B IPC
iii. RI for 02 years
alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 01 month for
offence under section 506 IPC.
iv. RI for 03 years
alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 06 months for
offence under Section 66E of IT Act.
All sentences are to run concurrently.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that,
“Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is presently
confined in Central Jail-02, Tihar Jail, New Delhi and has at present undergone
incarceration of about 01 year and 09 months 15 days (excluding remission) out
of RI for 14 years and fine. It is stated that the petitioner’s father passed
away on 16.09.2025 due to a heart attack- a fact duly verified by the
Investigating Officer. The copies of the death summary of the petitioner’s
father and cremation receipt have been placed on record.”
As it turned out, while elaborating further on the facts of the
case, the Bench enunciates in para 4 stating that, “Ld. Counsel further submits
that the petitioner being the eldest son, is required to perform the last rites
and customary rituals of his late father and therefore he has filed the present
petition seeking grant of parole for a period of 02 months to attend the final
rites/“Tehravi” of his deceased father fixed on 26.09.2025. It is further
stated that the petitioner has not availed any spell of parole/furlough during
his incarceration and his jail conduct as per the Nominal Roll dated 25.09.2025
has been “Satisfactory”. He has accordingly prayed for parole on humanitarian
grounds.”
Having said this, we ought to note that the Bench then also
mentions in para 5 that, “The Ld. ASC for the State apprised the Court that the
offence committed by the petitioner is of a grave and serious nature. He
submits that as per the instructions received from the Investigating Officer,
the fact that petitioner’s father passed away on 16.09.2025 and the final
rites/“Tehravi” ceremony being scheduled on 26.09.2025 has been duly verified
and fairly states that for the limited purpose of performing the last rites of
his father, release of the petitioner on parole can be considered due to the
emergent situation.”
Further, the Bench mentions in para 6 that, “On the aspect of
parole sought for 02 months, Ld. ASC contends that as per Rule 1212 of the
Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, parole cannot be granted for more than 04 weeks.”
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 7 that, “Heard learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 8 that, “The
Nominal Roll dated 25.09.2025 received from Superintendent of Prison, Central
Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi reflects that the present petitioner has not
availed any spell of furlough/parole on any occasion during his period of incarceration
and that his conduct has been “Satisfactory”.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in
para 9 noting that, “Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 reads as under:-
“1212. A convict would be released on
parole for a period of maximum eight weeks in minimum two spells in a
conviction year. However, the period of release in one spell should not be more
than four weeks. There should be one month gap between parole and last furlough
availed and vice–versa.
Note:- (1) If the convict has applied for extension after
surrendering from the original parole or his application for parole is pending
decision when he surrendered after availing original parole then his case will
be considered as fresh case.
(2) Simultaneous parole to co-accused is ordinarily not
permissible, however, in exceptional circumstances competent authority may
consider for reasons in writing for granting parole to co-accused who are
family members.””
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most commendably,
the Bench encapsulates in para 10 what constitutes the cornerstone of this
notable judgment postulating precisely that, “In the present case, the
petitioner has to attend the final rites/“Tehravi” of his deceased father and
he seeks grant of parole for 02 months on this ground. It is well settled that
parole is an established facet aimed at enabling a convict to maintain family
and social ties and to discharge essential obligations. The right to perform
last rites of a parent is an essential religious and moral duty. Denial of
parole in such circumstances would violate the petitioner’s right to dignity
under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court is mindful of the fact that the
offence committed by the petitioner is of a grave and serious nature, but to
deny parole in existence of a humanitarian ground would amount to a mechanical
application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying parole
jurisprudence.”
Most rationally and most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in
para 11 holding succinctly that, “Considering the peculiar facts that the
petitioner’s father expired on 16.09.2025 and that the final rites/“Tehravi”
ceremony is scheduled on 26.09.2025, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner deserves to be released on parole for a limited period.”
What’s more, the Bench then further observes in para 12
stipulating that, “Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is
directed to be released on parole for a period of 04 weeks from the date of
release, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/-
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail
Superintendent;
(ii) He shall reside only at the address mentioned in the memo
of parties and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station
without prior intimation;
(iii) He shall report
to the SHO, PS Kanjhawala, once a week, every Tuesday at 10:00 AM. The
concerned officer shall release the petitioner by 11:00 AM after recording his
presence and completing all necessary formalities;
(iv) The petitioner
shall provide his mobile number to the concerned jail authorities and to the
Investigating Officer and ensure it remains operational at all times;
(v) He shall not
directly/indirectly attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence
and shall not indulge in any criminal activity;
(vi) He shall
surrender before the Jail Superintendent immediately upon expiry of the parole
period.”
For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 13 mentioning
that, “It is made clear that breach of any of the above conditions shall entail
cancellation of parole forthwith.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in
para 15 that, “Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for information and necessary compliance.”
In essence, it merits just no reiteration that it is a most
robust, refreshing, remarkable and rational judgment by the Delhi High Court
which deserves to be emulated in similar such cases. It is made abundantly
clear by the Delhi High Court that the right to perform the last rites of a
parent is an essential religious and moral duty, and denial of parole to a
convict to conduct the same would violate his fundamental right to life under
Article 21 of Constitution. Also, it was made indubitably clear that being
convicted of a heinous crime cannot be a logical ground to deny parole in such
compelling case! Very rightly so!