‘Right of citizen to avail legal remedy in SC cannot be denied’: Delhi HC grants parole to rape convict seeking to move SC

The High Court was hearing a petition challenging the Delhi Government’s decision to deny parole to the man who was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for raping a minor by a trial court in 2019. The man was arrested and booked under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 376(2) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 6 (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of POCSO, in connection with the incident that took place in 2014. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision on July 4, 2022 following which the convict sought to move the apex court.

The accused argued that he had already undergone imprisonment of about eight years and six months out of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. He said that he wanted to file an SLP before the apex court for which he sought parole.

The man had moved an application for parole on September 23, 2022 before the Delhi Home Department, which on November 3, 2022 dismissed it holding that “there were no special circumstances that existed for grant of parole and the convict could file SLP from the jail itself where free legal aid is available to all prisoners”.

The Delhi Government referred to the Delhi Prison Rules to state before the HC that the accused could not have been granted parole considering his conduct inside the jail. The counsel for the state government referred to rule 1211 which reads, “In the following cases, parole shall not be granted, except, if in the discretion of the competent authority, special circumstances exist for grant of parole…If the prisoner is convicted under POCSO”.

Examining the provision, the High Court observed that the “bar in the said rule is not absolute since the competent authority has the discretion, even in such cases, to grant parole, provided there exist special circumstances”.

The court held that while rejecting the request for parole, the Delhi Government in its order did not refer to any special circumstances which were found insufficient for granting parole, rather it only mentions that the SLP can be filed from the jail itself and that the conduct of the applicant was not satisfactory.

The court also said it was conscious of the fact that the accused had been in judicial custody since the day of the arrest – May 11, 2014 – and “is continuously in jail for around eight years and six months”.