Allowed

Jitender Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC16 Sept 2026W.P.(CRL)/1938/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court quashed a punishment ticket issued by the Superintendent of Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, which stopped the petitioner's visitation and inmate calling facilities for 15 days after he failed to surrender on time following emergency parole extensions during the Covid-19 pandemic. The court held that the prisoner was not given a show-cause notice or opportunity to explain his absence, and that the dual stoppage of visitation and calling facilities constituted double punishment for the same offence, violating Rule 1275 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The decision followed earlier precedents recognising that delays in surrender during the pandemic were often inadvertent due to inconsistent official directions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned punishment ticket dated 08.06.2023 set aside; petition disposed of.

Jitender Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010385952025

¶4

- W.P.(CRL) 1938/2025 JITENDER SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Advocate. Mr. Rohan J. Alva, Advocate (DHCLSC) versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl) for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 16.09.2026

¶6

The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeks quashing of the punishment ticket dated 08.06.2023 awarded to the petitioner by the Superintendent, Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi, whereby his visitation and inmate calling facilities came to be stopped for fifteen days.

¶7

The petitioner is convicted in FIR No. 735/1997, registered at PS Sultan Puri, Delhi and was sentenced on 29.05.1999 to rigorous imprisonment for life.

¶8

As per the status report, the petitioner was released on emergency parole for ninety days during the Covid-19 pandemic, which came to be extended from time to time till 07.04.2023 in terms of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. He did not surrender on the due date and was re-arrested on 05.06.2023, whereupon the impugned punishment ticket came to be recorded against him.

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

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 18/09/2026 at 11:52:16

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not surrender on time as he was not informed of the date of surrender. It is submitted that the punishment ticket neither records the said reply nor any reason for rejecting the explanation and thus suffers from noncompliance with the procedure prescribed under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. It is further submitted that the stoppage of visitations as well as of the inmate calling facility amounts to punishing the petitioner twice for the same offence, contrary to Rule 1275 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 thereof.

¶12

Learned ASC appearing for the State, on the strength of the status report, submits that the petitioner jumped the emergency parole and failed to surrender on the due date. Further stated that the punishment came to be awarded for the said violation of the prison rules and stands judicially appraised and that the overall conduct of the petitioner is recorded to be unsatisfactory.

¶13

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

¶14

7. In Radhey Shyam v. State (NCT of Delhi )¹ , decided on 09.08.2024, this Court, while setting aside a similar punishment, held as under:

¶15

“20. The respondent should have given an opportunity to the petitioner by way of a Show-Cause Notice seeking explanation as to why he was not able to surrender on time. … Aside from this, though the respondent has claimed that it had duly informed the petitioner about the date of surrender but it is conspicuously silent about the manner in which the date of surrender was communicated to the petitioner.”

¶16

To the same effect are Md. Tanvir v. State (NCT of Delhi)² , decided on 20.09.2023, where the failure to surrender during the pandemic was held

¶17

1 W.P.(Crl.) 426/2023

¶18

2 W.P.(Crl.) 1020/2023

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 18/09/2026 at 11:52:16

¶21

to be an inadvertent error and not a deliberate attempt to jump parole. In Vipin Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)³ , the stoppage of the inmate calling system coupled with the stoppage of visitations was held to amount to punishing a prisoner twice over for the same offence by the same authority, contrary to Rule 1275 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, the Court has taken the view that the delay in surrender was occasioned by inconsistencies in the directions and the absence of clear instructions about their service regarding the reporting of the inmates to the concerned Jail.

¶23

Accordingly, on hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned punishment ticket dated 08.06.2023 stands set aside. The petition stands disposed of.

¶24

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶25

SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 / tr

¶26

3 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4928

¶27

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 18/09/2026 at 11:52:16

Jitender Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Sharma Vs State of Gnct of Delhi

Sh. Ajeet Kumar Mishra Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rana Pratap Singh Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sandeep Rana & Ors. Vs Stategovt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rakesh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Kedar Devidas Hiraman Vs the State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr.

Peal Baagh Tea Private Limited Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ashok Yadav Vs State of NCT of Delhi through SHO & Ors.