Raj Kumar Vs State NCT Govt of Delhi

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 25/2026 RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Shannu Baghel, Advocate.

¶5

versus STATE NCT GOVT OF DELHI .....Respondent

¶6

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R

¶7

% 06.07.2026

¶8

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] seeking parole for a period of four weeks for re-establishing social and family ties in FIR No. 49/2010, under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code [IPC].

¶9

The petitioner is a life convict undergoing sentence in the aforesaid case. The nominal roll indicates that the petitioner has undergone approximately 13 years, 1 month, and 12 days of actual incarceration as on 04.02.2026, and has earned remission of 3 years, 4 months, and 22 days.

¶10

This Court has perused the nominal roll placed on record, which also includes the status report filed by the respondent. The petitioner's parole application was rejected by the competent authority, i.e., the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, vide order dated 23.12.2025, on the grounds that (i) the

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 09/07/2026 at 11:11:25

¶13

petitioner had previously violated the terms and conditions of parole/furlough granted to him; (ii) his overall jail conduct was reported to be unsatisfactory; and (iii) the jail Superintendent had not recommended the grant of parole.

¶14

This Court has examined the relevant provisions of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Rule 1210(iv) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 provides that a convict is not entitled to parole if they have violated any terms and conditions of the parole or furlough granted previously. Further, Rule 1211(iii) of the said Rules provides that parole shall not be granted to prisoners who have been rearrested after absconding while released on parole or furlough, except in the presence of special circumstances as determined by the competent authority in its discretion. The petitioner's case falls squarely within these disqualifying provisions.

¶15

A perusal of the nominal roll reveals that the petitioner was released on 03 weeks parole w.e.f. 31.07.2023 to 20.08.2023, but he jumped the same and was rearrested in the same case on 01.12.2024. This constitutes a clear violation of Rule 1210(iv). Furthermore, the petitioner was rearrested after absconding while on parole, which squarely attracts the bar under Rule 1211(iii).

¶16

Bearing in mind the overall jail conduct which is reflected in the nominal roll, more importantly, column nos.18 to 20, the Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of parole to the petitioner. Paragraph nos.18 to 20 of the nominal roll is extracted as under:

¶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 09/07/2026 at 11:11:25

¶19

18	OVERALL JAIL CONDUCT (WITH THE DETAILS OF	UN-SATISFACTORY, IN VIEW OF REASON MENTION
	PUNISHMENTS, IF ANY)	BELOW
		1. PUNISHMENT DATED; 19.08.2020- 03 WEEKS FURLOUGH W.E.F. 06.07.2018 TO 27.07.2018 BY D.G.(P) BUT JUMPED AND RE-
		ARRESTED ON
		07.01.2020 IN OTHER CASE
		04/2020, U/S-25/54/59
		ACT, PS-MALVIYA NAGAR
		(WARNED BY SC
		2. CONVICT RELEASED ON
		PAROLE W.E.F. 31.07.2023 TO 20:08.2023 GRANTED BY DHC THEREAFTER JUMPED THE SAME AND RE-
		ARRESTED IN SAME CASE ON 01.12.2024.
19	DETAILS OF I-	1. 02 WEEKS PAROLE W.E.F.
	BAIL/PAROLE/FURLOUGH AVAILED	19.01.2018 TO 02.02.2018 BY GNCTD. 2. 03 WEEKS FURLOUGH W.E.F. 06.07.2018 TO

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 09/07/2026 at 11:11:25

¶22

		27.07.2018 BY D.G.[P] BUT JUMPED AND REARRESTED ON 07.01.2020 IN OTHER CASE 04/2020, U/S-25/54/59 ACT, PS-MALVIYA NAGAR 3. 01.12.2024- 03 WEEKS PAROLE W.E.F. 31.07.2023 TO 20.08.2023 GRANTED BY DHC BUT JUMPED AND RE-ARRESTED IN SAME CASE ON 01.12.2024.
20	REPORT OF MISCONDUCT (IF ANY] DURING	1. 03 WEEKS FURLOUGH W.E.F. 06.07.2018 TO
	INTERIM BAIL/PAROLE	27.07.2018 BY D.G.(P] BUT
	/FURLOUGH AVAILED	JUMPED AND REARRESTED ON 07.01.2020 IN OTHER CASE
		04/2020, U/S-25/54/59 ACT, PS-
		MALVIYA NAGAR.
		2. 03 WEEKS PAROLE W.E.F. 31.07.2023 TO 20.08.2023 BY DHC BUT JUMPED AND REARRESTED
		IN SAME CASE ON 01.12.2024

¶23

”

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 09/07/2026 at 11:11:25

¶26

It is, thus, seen that the petitioner has misused the liberty repeatedly. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there were valid reasons why the petitioner could not surrender within the time.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Vinod v. State NCT of Delhi¹ and Rahul Dev v. State of NCT of Delhi.² The judgments relied upon by him are not applicable in the facts of present case. In Rahul Dev (supra) , the petitioner, therein, was granted parole despite having jumped furlough, but in that case, the petitioner's conduct in the last one year was satisfactory and more than two years had passed since his rearrest. In the present case, the petitioner jumped parole as recently as 2023, his overall jail conduct remains unsatisfactory, and the Jail Superintendent has not recommended his release. Similarly, in Vinod (supra) , the petitioner had largely complied with conditions of parole and furlough granted earlier, which is not the case here. 9. All those submissions cannot be accepted as the petitioner has been found to be repeated absconder and beside the aforesaid, there are other criminal cases pending against the petitioner.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶29

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶30

JULY 6, 2026/ tr

¶31

1 [W.P.(Crl.) 1112/2024]

¶32

2 [W.P.(Crl.) 3445/2023]

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 09/07/2026 at 11:11:25

Raj Kumar v. State NCT Govt of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State NCT Govt of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Dass Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Gaurav & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Deepak Nanda Vs State ( NCT of Delhi)

Ajay Kumar Tripathi Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Som Shankar Alias Sonu Thukral & Anr. Vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Sunil Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Hemlata Vs State (Nct) of Delhi and Ors.

Dr Kanwar Deep Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Omkar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Kamal Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Ram Dass Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Shalu Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Neetu Bisht Vs State NCT of Delhi