Pradeep Paswan Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

$~18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(CRL) 14/2026 PRADEEP PASWAN .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Ms. Akanksha Bisht, Mr. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr. Siddharth Satija (DHCLSC), Mr. Akash Sachan, Advs.

¶5

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amol Sinha (ASC, Criminal for State) along with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mrs. Chavi Lazarus and Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advs. Insp. Jagmohan, PS: Sarai Rohilla.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶8

O R D E R % 20.07.2026

¶9

The petitioner is a life convict and is undergoing jail sentence. As per the Nominal Roll dated 21.01.2026, period undergone including under trial less interim bail as on 21.01.2025 is fourteen (14) years, four (04) months and one (01) day. The petitioner’s overall conduct has been found to be satisfactory except one punishment dated 18.11.2023 for surrendering late. 2. The petitioner has been granted multiple furloughs (12 occasions). The parole was granted on four occasions. All the time, the petitioner timely surrendered and has not been found in violation of any of the terms and

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 22/07/2026 at 12:57:43

¶12

conditions.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that the punishment dated 18.11.2023 is the sole basis for rejection of the furlough. The said punishment was not called for and has been awarded only on account of late surrender i.e. on 18.11.2023 instead of 07.04.2023.

¶14

Learned counsel contends that on account of COVID -19 situation, the petitioner was released on emergency parole w.e.f. 15.05.2021 and he was to surrender on 07.04.2023. However, the petitioner surrendered on 18.11.2023. According to her, the date for surrender was not informed to the petitioner and the petitioner bona-fide continued on parole and realising that the parole was only up to 07.04.2023, he immediately surrendered. It is submitted that on 17.11.2023, he got a call for his surrender and he immediately surrendered on 18.11.2023.

¶15

The Court has considered various decisions passed by this Court which have been cited by the petitioner. 6. In the case of Mohd. Alam v. State (NCT of Delhi) in W.P.(Crl.) 3499/2024 on account of not informing the date of surrender, the punishment of late surrender was found to be unjustified and accordingly, the impugned order therein was quashed. Similarly, in the case of Manjeet v. State (NCT of Delhi)¹ , Vijay Kumar @ Mannu v. State (NCT of Delhi) in W.P.(Crl.) 466/2205 and in other decisions, almost similar view has been taken.

¶16

In the case of Chetan v. State GNCT of Delhi in W.P.(C) 2799/2025, the Court has held that merely because the convict released on parole and/on furlough fails to surrender in time, unless there are other inculpatory

¶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 22/07/2026 at 12:57:43

¶19

circumstances, delay of a day or two in surrender must be examined with a slight tilt in favour of the convict in order to ensure proper utilisation of the these tools of reformation.

¶20

In the instant case, the delay is about seven months, however, the same is on account of uncertainty and bona fide understanding of the date of surrender.

¶21

The Court has also seen the overall conduct of the petitioner, which is found to be satisfactory in his more than 14 years of imprisonment. Except the present punishment, there is no other adverse finding against his conduct. Accordingly, the impugned orders with respect to punishment of late surrender stand set aside.

¶22

It is directed that the petitioner’s case be considered for fresh furlough ignoring the punishment dated 18.11.2023.

¶23

Let the expeditious disposal be taken on the petitioner’s application for grant of furlough. Let the decision be taken within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today.

¶24

Petition stands disposed of.

¶25

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶26

JULY 20, 2026/P

¶27

1 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3654

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 22/07/2026 at 12:57:43

Pradeep Paswan v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Paswan v. State (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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joney Patel @Nikhil and Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Gaurav Gupta Vs Govt of NCT Delhi (through Its Chief Secretary) & Anr.

Nandu @ Ram Kishore Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Shared Pandey @ Kapil Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Poonam Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mrs Mehrunnisa and Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Amit Gulia Vs the State (Govt. of Nct) Delhi

Bablu Vs State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Joney Patel @Nikhil and Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Mohd Mudassir & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Naresh Chand Sharma & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rohit @ Fajula Vs State of NCT of Delhi