$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2156/2025 BAYEM VICTOR .....Petitioner Through: Dr. M. P. Singh Adv. (DHCLSC) with Ms. Poorna, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anand V Khatri, ASC for State with SI Manjeet Singh Sub Inspector PS Tilak Nagar CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for parole and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two months in FIR No. 291/2011 registered at PS Tilak Nagar, Delhi under Sections 302/392/174-A/34 IPC and 14 of the Foreigner's Act. 2. The petitioner has been denied the benefit of parole by the Home Department of the Government of Delhi vide rejection order dated 08.11.2024 on the ground that as per Rule 1211 sub rule (iv) of the Delhi 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 17/07/2026 at 11:55:07 Prison Rules, 2018,the convict foreigners cannot be granted the benefit of parole without prior approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of External Affairs having valid permission to stay in India, that too only in exceptional circumstances. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner is convicted for offence under Section 302/392/170A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Foreigners Act, PS Tilak Nagar and he seeks parole to maintain social ties and family relation and to curb inner stress and depression due to incarceration. 4. The rejection of the SLP is of the year 2024. It appears that almost similar circumstances exists, as has been discussed in W.P.(CRL) 1431/2025. The petitioner in the instant case is a national of Nigeria. The additional ground for filing of an SLP, at his point of time, would be of no significance as the order passed therein, has not been brought on record to indicate whether thereafter, the SLP has not yet been preferred. 5. This Court finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan1, wherein it has been held that parole is not a matter of right and that while considering an application for parole, the competent authority is required to take into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct and antecedents of the convict, the likelihood of absconding or misuse of liberty and the larger public interest. The grant of parole is, therefore, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under the applicable Prison Rules. 6. Bearing in mind the rule embargo and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Asfaq (supra), the Court is not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the parole of the petitioner. 1(2017) 15 SCC 55. 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 17/07/2026 at 11:55:07 7. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 13, 2026 Nc 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 17/07/2026 at 11:55:07