Haripal Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

Haripal Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No quashing of the rejection order; the petition was disposed of upon counsel not pressing for further relief, with the expectation that the competent authority reconsider the pending parole application expeditiously in accordance with law and the prevalent guidelines, and with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition if parole is again refused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order No.F.18/107/2025/HG/Prisons/3737 dated 05.12.2025 rejecting the petitioner's request for grant of parole ought to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at that moment, did not press for any further relief and stated that the petition may be disposed of accordingly; the Court so disposed of the petition.

Ratio / Principle

The competent authority is expected to consider the same pending parole application as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law and the prevalent guidelines.

Key takeaways

In case the request for parole is not acceded to by the competent authority, the petitioner would be permitted to file the petition afresh.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(CRL) 3/2026, Haripal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi (High Court of Delhi, 05.01.2026, Manoj Jain J., oral judgment): A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS sought certiorari against rejection of the petitioner's parole request by Order No.F.18/107/2025/HG/Prisons/3737 dated 05.12.2025; the recorded ground was that a co-accused was simultaneously on parole, which is ordinarily not permissible. Per the Nominal Roll dated 15.12.2025 the other co-accused were back in prison custody, one having completed his tenure of sentence. Counsel for the petitioner did not press for further relief and the petition was disposed of, the competent authority being expected to reconsider the same parole application expeditiously in accordance with law and the prevalent guidelines; if parole is not acceded to, the petitioner may file the petition afresh.

$~10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 05^th January, 2026

- W.P.(CRL) 3/2026 HARIPAL SINGH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pratap Singh Parmar, Advocate (through V.C.)

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T (oral)

CRL.M.A. 39/2026 (exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(CRL) 3/2026

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari.

The petitioner seeks quashing of Order No.F.18/107/2025/HG/Prisons/ 3737 dated 05.12.2025 whereby his request for grant of parole has been rejected by the competent authority .

The order of rejection has also been annexed with the petition.

A perusal of the same would indicate that the prime most reason for rejection is the fact that his co-accused is also on parole and simultaneous parole to a co-accused is, ordinarily, not permissible.

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 3/2026 1

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 7.01.2026 11:13:38

As per the Nominal Roll dated 15.12.2025, the other co-accused, are now lodged in prison. One of such co-accused has been released but it is because of the fact that he has completed his tenure of sentence.

In view of the abovesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection if his earlier request for grant of parole is reconsidered by the competent authority in light of aforesaid development.

Learned Addl. P.P. for the State also submits that the abovesaid application shall be considered afresh as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the moment, does not press for any further relief and states that his petition may be disposed of accordingly.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. It is expected that the competent authority shall consider the same application seeking grant of parole as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law and the prevalent guidelines. Needless to say, in case the request of parole is not acceded to by the competent authority , the petitioner would be permitted to file the petition afresh.

A copy of this order may be forwarded to Superintendent, Jail for necessary information and action.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

JANUARY 05, 2026 st/sy

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 3/2026 2

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 7.01.2026 11:13:38