W.P.(CRL) 2482/2026 $~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010379212026 + W.P.(CRL) 2482/2026 SURENDER @ KALWA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Mr. Anmol Kumar Pandey and Ms. Jyoti Yadav, Advocates versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for State with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates SI Suneel Kumar Sahu, P.S. South Rohini CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking release on parole for the purpose of maintaining social ties. 2. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 302/392/394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) in connection with FIR No.119/2004. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner before this Court was dismissed on 23rd July, 2014. Subsequently, criminal appeal filed by the petitioner was also disposed by the Supreme Court on 29th November, 2017 while directing that, on completion of fourteen years of sentence, the case of the petitioner 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 05/10/2026 at 11:34:33 W.P.(CRL) 2482/2026 for remission would be considered within a period of three months of expiry of fourteen years, in accordance with law. 4. The petitioner filed an application on 21st May, 2026 for grant of parole. 5. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P. Crl. No. 2141/2026 and this Court vide order dated 22nd July, 2026 disposed of the said petition while directing the respondent to decide the application in ten (10) days. The relevant extracts from the said order are set out below: “4. It is submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the petitioner’s parole application is under active consideration. 5. Let the decision be taken within 10 days from today. 6. In view of above, petition stands disposed of.” 6. It is stated that the said application was not decided and hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 7. Notice in the present writ petition was issued on 17th August, 2026. 8. During the pendency of the petition, the application for parole was rejected by the respondent/State vide order dated 1st September, 2026. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid order is set out below: 9. This Court, vide order dated 2nd September, 2026 granted liberty to the petitioner to amend the petition and challenge the said order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition has been amended and in terms of the amended writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 1st September, 2026. 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 05/10/2026 at 11:34:33 W.P.(CRL) 2482/2026 11. The Verification/Status report has been filed on behalf of respondent/State, wherein the address of the petitioner has been verified as Village Salempura Mazra, Bulandsehar, District Bulandsehar, Uttar Pradesh. 12. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of petitioner is satisfactory inside the prison and has been granted furlough/parole in the past on the basis of cash surety. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the order dated 24th April, 2026, whereby the petitioner has been granted furlough on the basis of cash surety of Rs.10,000/-. 13. Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC appearing for the State points out that the other co-accused in the same FIR is already out on furlough. Therefore, the parole of the petitioner should begin after the said co-accused surrenders. 14. This Court is in agreement with the aforesaid submission. 15. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55, has held that conviction in a serious and heinous crime cannot be the sole reason for denying parole to a prisoner. The relevant observations are set out below: “9. We may state at the outset that the reason because of which the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is not an apposite one and does not meet the test of law. The petition is dismissed only on the ground that the appellant is convicted in a case of serious and heinous crime and, therefore, parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As per the discussion that would follow hereinafter, the conviction in a serious and heinous crime cannot be the reason for denying the parole per se… xxx xxx xxx 22. Another vital aspect that needs to be discussed is as to whether there can be any presumption that a person who is convicted of serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal. Hardened criminal would be a person for whom it has become a habit or way of life and such a person would necessarily tend to commit crimes again and again. Obviously, 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 05/10/2026 at 11:34:33 W.P.(CRL) 2482/2026 if a person has committed a serious offence for which he is convicted, but at the same time it is also found that it is the only crime he has committed, he cannot be categorised as a hardened criminal. In his case consideration should be as to whether he is showing the signs to reform himself and become a good citizen or there are circumstances which would indicate that he has a tendency to commit the crime again or that he would be a threat to the society. Mere nature of the offence committed by him should not be a factor to deny the parole outrightly. Wherever a person convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of offence for which he was sentenced. We may hasten to put a rider here viz. in those cases where a person has been convicted for committing a serious offence, the competent authority, while examining such cases, can be well advised to have stricter standards in mind while judging their cases on the parameters of good conduct, habitual offender or while judging whether he could be considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity, etc.” 16. The Supreme Court in Asfaq (supra) has laid down the following guidelines for grant of parole to a convict: “13. As far as “regular parole” is concerned, it may be given in the following cases: (vii) serious illness of a family member; (ii) critical conditions in the family on account of accident or death of a family member; (iii) marriage of any member of the family of the convict; (iv) delivery of a child by the wife of the convict if there is no other family member to take care of the spouse at home; (v) serious damage to life or property of the family of the convict including damage caused by natural calamities; (vi) to maintain family and social ties; (vii) to pursue the filing of a special leave petition before this Court against a judgment delivered by the High Court convicting or upholding the conviction, as the case may be.” 17. In view of the legal position laid down above, I am satisfied that parole cannot be denied to the petitioners merely because they have committed a heinous offence. 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 05/10/2026 at 11:34:33 W.P.(CRL) 2482/2026 18. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and impugned order dated 1st September, 2026 is set aside. Resultantly, the respondent is directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of four (4) weeks after the co- accused surrenders, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/- and a cash surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent and further subject to following conditions: a. That the petitioner shall report to the SHO of the local area, once a week on every Sunday at 10:00 AM. b. The petitioner shall remain at his ordinary place of residence, i.e., Village Salempura Mazra, Bulandsehar, District Bulandsehar, Uttar Pradesh, during the period of his release on parole. c. The petitioner shall furnish a telephone number to the Jail Superintendent on which he can be contacted, if required. After his release, he shall also inform his telephone number to the SHO of the police station concerned. d. The petitioner shall maintain peace and good behavior during his period of release on parole. e. Immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent. f. The period of parole shall be counted from the day when the petitioner is released from jail. 19. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. 20. Copy of the order be forwarded to the Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance. AMIT BANSAL, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/ds 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 05/10/2026 at 11:34:33