Dismissed¶¶22

Parveen @ Naveen @ Vicky v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC20 May 2025W.P.(CRL)/1676/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parole; mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 528 BNSS 2023; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; W.P.(CRL) 1676/2025; W.P.(CRL) 845/2025 order dated 03.04.2025; Co-ordinate Bench; fresh representation for parole; Competent Authority rejection; dismissal as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition; social ties; Special Leave Petition Supreme Court; State of NCT of Delhi; Parveen @ Naveen @ Vicky; Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma; High Court of Delhi; 20.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to file a fresh petition challenging the order passed by the competent authority rejecting the petitioner's parole application/representation. ¶¶22

Parveen @ Naveen @ Vicky Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to file a fresh petition challenging the order passed by the competent authority rejecting the petitioner's parole application/representation.

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent should be directed by writ of mandamus to release the petitioner on parole for 4 weeks on the ground of social ties and for filing of a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. +1 more

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

Since the competent authority had, during the pendency of the petition, decided and rejected the petitioner's parole application/representation, the Court dismissed the present petition as withdrawn, granting counsel liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the order passed by the competent authority.

¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Parole petition (W.P.(CRL) 1676/2025, High Court of Delhi, Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma J., decision dated 20.05.2025) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by convict Parveen @ Naveen @ Vicky, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State of NCT of Delhi to release him on parole for 4 weeks on grounds of social ties and for filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Attention was drawn to an order dated 03.04.2025 in W.P.(CRL) 845/2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench, which, noting that two years had lapsed since punishment, had directed that the petition be treated as a fresh representation for parole before the Competent Authority, to be decided within 3 weeks under intimation to the petitioner. During the pendency of the petition, the competent authority decided and rejected the petitioner's application/representation; counsel accordingly sought withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the competent authority's order. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No substantive parole adjudication was made by this Court; no precedent was cited and no legal principle articulated beyond the disposal.

¶1

$~73

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1676/2025

¶4

PARVEEN @ NAVEEN @ VICKY .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rohan J. Alva With Mr. Anant Sanghi, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl) for State.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 20.05.2025

¶12

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

¶13

"a.) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on Parole for 4 weeks on the ground of social ties and for filing of Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme court And

¶14

b.) Pass any other order or further orders, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice"

¶15

This Court's attention has been drawn to an order dated 03.04.2025, passed in W.P.(CRL) 845/2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein it was directed as under:

¶16

“4. It is pointed out that two years since the said punishment has now lapsed. In view of the same, let the present petition be treated as a fresh representation for parole and be placed before the Competent Authority. The Competent

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 04/07/2025 at 03:14:56

¶19

Authority shall decide the said representation within a period of 3 weeks under intimation to the petitioner."

¶20

The present petition was filed on the ground that despite lapse of a period of three weeks, the application of the petitioner had not been decided. However, during the pendency of the present petition, the said application/ representation has been decided by the competent authority and the same has been rejected.

¶21

In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petition seeks to withdraw the present petition along with the liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the aforesaid order passed by the competent authority.

¶22

In view of the above statements, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶23

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶24

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶25

MAY 20, 2025/vc

¶26

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 04/07/2025 at 03:14:56

Parveen @ Naveen @ Vicky v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen @ Naveen @ Vicky v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaurya Suneja Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Deepak Rawat Vs State of NCT of Delhi

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

Mohan Pandit Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Rajneesh Arora Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ms. Chaman Bano (Senior Citizen) Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Atif Ur Rehman Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Abc Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors.

Sh. Rohit Vs the State N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

Abrar@Bale Vs State of Delhi through SHO Ps Crime Branch

Nand Kumar Suraj Bhan Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Khushboo Kumar Rajak & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

K Shivam Vs State NCT of Delhi

Xyz Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.