Disposed

Mohd Imran v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC4 Jul 2025W.P.(CRL)/1585/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A life-term convict's parole request was rejected partly on his re-arrest in another FIR despite his subsequent acquittal. The court set aside the rejection order as reflecting non-application of mind and directed fresh examination of the parole application within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order dated 22.04.2025 set aside; Competent Authority to re-examine parole application considering acquittal, decision within 10 days.

Mohd Imran Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1585/2025

¶4

MOHD IMRAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate (DHCLSC).

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocate for State with Ms. Rekha Chauhan, SI, PS-Pandav Nagar.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶8

O R D E R % 04.07.2025

¶9

The Petitioner is a convict serving life sentence in terms of FIR No. 131/2010, under Sections 302, 392 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹ , registered at P.S. Pandav Nagar. As per the nominal roll, as on 3^rd May, 2025, the Petitioner has served a sentence spanning 12 years, 9 months and 4 days and has earned remission of 3 years, 7 months and 18 days.

¶10

On 20^th February, 2025, the Petitioner approached the Competent Authority with a request for parole. This application, however, was turned down through a detailed order dated 22^nd April, 2025, which forms the basis of the present challenge. The rejection primarily rests on the Petitioner’s previous record of non-compliance with prison rules, specifically Rules

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 12:17:35

¶12

1210 and 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The order underscores two significant lapses: first, on an earlier occasion when the Petitioner was granted furlough for two weeks, he overstayed and surrendered after a delay of ten days. Second, during an earlier spell of emergency parole the Petitioner was re-arrested in connection with FIR No. 477/2022, registered at P.S. Pandav Nagar on 20^th July, 2022, involving serious allegations under the Arms Act, 1959. These past infractions, reflecting a disregard for the conditions of temporary release, formed the crux of the authority’s decision to deny parole.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has been acquitted in FIR No. 477/2022, vide judgment dated 28^th February, 2025 passed by the Trial Court, a crucial fact that, according to him, was entirely overlooked by the Competent Authority while passing the impugned rejection order. This specific factual assertion is not disputed by Mr. Arjit Sharma, counsel representing the State.

¶14

In view of this admitted position, the very foundation of the impugned order, which attributes adverse conduct to the Petitioner on the basis of his re-arrest in the afore-said FIR, stands substantially eroded. Once the Petitioner has been acquitted, the reliance placed on re-arrest as being indicative of misconduct or breach of trust during parole loses force. Therefore, an adverse inference cannot be drawn from an incident that no longer has a legal consequence. Moreover, it is significant to note that this acquittal occurred prior to the passing of the impugned order. The failure to consider such a material development not only reflects a clear nonapplication of mind but also demonstrates a disregard for relevant and

¶15

1 “IPC”

¶16

¶17

decisive facts essential to a fair determination of the Petitioner’s request. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

¶18

In light of the foregoing, the following directions are issued: (i) The impugned order dated 22^nd April, 2025 is set aside.

¶19

(ii) The Petitioner’s application for parole dated 20^th February, 2025, which was rejected in the impugned order, shall be re-examined by the Competent Authority, giving due regard to the facts noted above, and the acquittal of the Petitioner in FIR No. 477/2022.

¶20

(iii) The decision on the Petitioner’s request shall be rendered within a period of 10 days from today.

¶21

Needless to state, in case the Petitioner’s request is declined, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate legal measures, in accordance with law. It is clarified that the Court has not commented on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶22

With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of.

¶23

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶24

JULY 4, 2025 nk

¶25

Mohd Imran v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Imran v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chander Prakash Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Pawan Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ravinder Rana Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Dushyant @ Sonu & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sh Love Yadav @ Love Kumar Yadav @Love Kumar & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Dharmender Singh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rithin Narayanan K Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Deepak Srivastav Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Taslima @ Putti Vs the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Sunil Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Manish Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Sunil Kumar & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Gaurav Bhayana & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.