Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4565 (ALL)

Angad Yadav v. State of U. P.

2026-03-19

Rajeev Bharti, Rajesh Singh Chauhan

body2026
JUDGMENT : RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Shri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. All the aforesaid writ petitions pertain to the same petitioner as also the grievance of the petitioner is similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all these petitions are being decided by a common order. 3. At present the petitioner is in jail in connection with Crime No. 835 of 1995, as he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.20,000/- by learned trial court, i.e. VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in S.T. No.579 of 1996. Being aggrieved against the conviction order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.1044 of 2020, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2021. Being aggrieved against the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1922 of 2022, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2022, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.C.A.1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.10859 of 2025, hence the order passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed. 4. On 20.05.2025 a representation has been moved on behalf of the petitioner before the State Authorities under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') seeking short term bail on the ground of petitioner's multiple ailment, old age and humanitarian grounds for a period of two months. Thereafter on 26.06.2025 the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.5870 of 2025 seeking the following main prayers:- (a) issue writ, order/orders or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the representation for grant of his release for short period dated 20.05.2025 submitted before respondents on humanitarian ground as early as possible and till disposal of his representation dated 20.05.2025, he may be permitted to furnish bonds for his release for such period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper before the court concerned or till disposal of his representation dated 20.05.2025 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, in the ends of justice; 5. Learned State Counsel in his counter affidavit submitted that the representation dated 20.05.2025 made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.06.2025. The same is being reproduced hereinbelow:- 6. Challenging the order dated 04.06.2025, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.10859 of 2025 with the following main prayer(s):- "(a) issue writ, order/orders or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.06.2025 vide No.243 J.L./22-3-2025-E-1932376 passed by Respondent No.6 contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition; (b) to issue writ, order/orders in the nature of mandamus commanding the state authorities concerned to release the petitioner on parole/short-term bail whatsoever this Hon'ble Court may kindly be deemed fit and proper in the ends of justice." 7. Thereafter another representation dated 05.07.2025 was preferred on behalf of petitioner before the State Authorities for grant of short term bail/parole on the ground of settling the marriage of petitioner's son and daughter, however, the said representation also met with the same fate and was rejected on 27.10.2025. The same is being reproduced hereinudner:- 8. Being aggrieved against the rejection of second representation, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.848 of 2026 with the following main prayer(s):- (a) issue writ, order/orders or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.10.2025 vide letter No. 1531&32@ftŒÁksŒdkŒ@cUnh&iSjksy@2025&26 passed by Respondent/District Magistrate Azamgarh contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. (b) to issue a writ, order/orders in the nature of mandamus commanding the state authorities concerned to release the petitioner on parole/short-term bail whatsoever this Hon'ble Court may kindly be deemed fit and proper in the ends of justice. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was elected on the post of member of legislative Assembly in State of U.P. in the year 1991, 1993 and 2007 and he was also State of Minister of Forest in State of Uttar Pradesh. He has further submitted that the petitioner is an old person aged about 71 years and suffering from old age diseases. Earlier a representation dated 20.05.2025 was moved on behalf of the petitioner for short term bail on humanitarian ground before the authorities concerned, but the same was rejected on 04.06.2025. He has further submitted that the petitioner is an old person aged about 71 years and suffering from old age diseases. Earlier a representation dated 20.05.2025 was moved on behalf of the petitioner for short term bail on humanitarian ground before the authorities concerned, but the same was rejected on 04.06.2025. The petitioner again moved a second representation dated 05.07.2025, which was also rejected vide order dated 27.10.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the second representation was rejected in cursory manner on the ground that the petitioner has criminal history; there are other family members in the house of the petitioner; the date of marriage of petitioner's children has not yet been fixed. He has further submitted that the short term bail/parole cannot be rejected on the ground of criminal cases. The petitioner was a political person and due to political enmity, false cases were registered against him and in most of the cases the petitioner has been acquitted and in 2 cases he has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C., hence the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Rules framed by the State Authorities in the year 2007 for granting parole. Argument of learned State Counsel 10. Per contra, Sri Bipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner while stating that the petitioner has criminal history; marriage of petitioner's children has yet not been fixed, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to grant parole and the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Analysis 11. So far as the writ petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5870 of 2025, which was preferred to decide the representation dated 20.05.2025, is concerned, it transpires from the record that representation dated 20.05.2025, moved on behalf of petitioner, had already been decided vide order dated 04.06.2025, hence the said writ petition seeking to decide representation dated 20.05.2025 has no force. 12. As regards writ petition bearing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 10859 of 2025 is concerned, the main ground for filing the representation dated 20.05.2025 was the petitioner's ill health, and the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan & others, (2017) 15 SCC 55 , especially para no.11, which is being reproduced hereinunder. "11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough. "11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough. A parole can be defined as the conditional release of prisoners, i.e., an early release of a prisoner, conditional on good behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It can also be defined as a form of conditional pardon by which the convict is released before the expiration of his term. Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition that the parolee regularly reports to a supervising officer for a specified period. Such a release of the prisoner on parole can also be temporary on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it is to be treated as a mere suspension of the sentence for the time being, keeping the quantum of sentence intact. Release on parole is designed to afford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified exigencies. Such paroles are normally granted in certain situations, some of which may be as follows: (i) a member of the prisoner's family has died or is seriously ill, or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or (ii) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, sister's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (iii) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting, or carrying on any other agricultural operation of his land or his father's undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner; or (iv) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause; (v) parole can be granted only after a portion of the sentence is already served; (vi) if conditions of parole are not abided by the parolee, he may be returned to serve his sentence in prison, such conditions may be such as those of committing a new offence; (vii) Parole may also be granted on the basis of aspects related to the health of the convict himself. 13. Learned counsel has also relied upon Rule 3 of U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007. The same is reproduced hereinunder. " 3. Power to suspend sentence. 13. Learned counsel has also relied upon Rule 3 of U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007. The same is reproduced hereinunder. " 3. Power to suspend sentence. - (1) The Government may suspend the sentences of a prisoner up to one month on following grounds : (a) illness of prisoner's parents, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother or sister, (b) death of any one of the relative mentioned in sub-clause (a), (c) marriage of son, daughter, brother or sister; (d) for sowing or harvesting of agricultural crops on his own land provided no other alternative arrangement for the same is available; (e) for the essential repair of his house, provided no other alternative arrangement for the same is available. (2) The Government may, in special circumstances, extend the period of suspension of sentence referred to in sub-rules (1) for a period not exceeding one month." 14. Learned State Counsel through his counter affidavit submitted the detailed health report of the petitioner/convict; some parts of the detailed health report are being reproduced below. 15. From a perusal of record, it is apparent that the petitioner/convict is in good health, hence, we do not find any substance in the petitioner's claim. However, the jail authorities is directed to take necessary steps considering the health of the petitioner. 16. As regards Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.848 of 2026, which has been filed challenging the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh whereby the second representation moved on behalf of petitioner dated 05.07.2025 was rejected, it transpires from the record that learned State Counsel in his counter affidavit submitted that in the second representation, parole was prayed mainly on two grounds: (i) to complete Agricultural work. (ii) to fix the marriage of his son and daughter. However, it has been submitted by learned State Counsel that there is no provision for parole based on "arranging the marriage of a son or daughter" under the U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, Rule 3. 17. From a perusal of U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, especially Rule 3, we find substance in the argument of learned State Counsel, as under Rule 3 of U.P. (Suspension of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, there is no provision for such an arrangement. 18. 17. From a perusal of U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, especially Rule 3, we find substance in the argument of learned State Counsel, as under Rule 3 of U.P. (Suspension of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, there is no provision for such an arrangement. 18. With regard to another contention of the counsel for the petitioner, that is, parole to complete the Agricultural work. Although there is a provision for such an arrangement made under U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, Rule 3(d), that says that “for sowing or harvesting of agricultural crops on his own land, provided no other alternative arrangement for the same is available”; but from perusal of said rule, it is also clear that if no other alternative arrangement for the same is present, but in the present case the petitioner has three sons, namly, Santosh Yadav (50 years), Alok Yadav (45 years), and Amar Yadav (30 years). Therefore, it can be concluded that the petitioner has sufficient means for other alternative arrangements for agricultural work. Hence, we do not find any substance in this argument. 19. It is pertinent here to mention the case of Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), wherein the Apex court has clearly used a “tone of caution” while granting parole in such cases. The relevant para is being reproduced below. "20) Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for the grant of furlough or parole. Obviously, society must isolate those who show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet administrators ought to encourage those offenders who demonstrate a commitment to reconcile with society and whose behaviour shows that aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Thus, the parole program should be used as a tool to shape such adjustments. 21) To sum up, in introducing penal reforms, the State that runs the administration on behalf of the society and for the benefit of the society at large cannot be unmindful of safeguarding the legitimate rights of the citizens in regard to their security in the matters of life and liberty. It is for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to the society to render it immune from those who are prone to criminal tendencies and have proved their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty (by a Court) of having perpetrated a criminal act. It is for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to the society to render it immune from those who are prone to criminal tendencies and have proved their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty (by a Court) of having perpetrated a criminal act. One of the discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of imprisonment is to render the society immune from the criminal for a specified period. It is, therefore, understandable that while meting out humane treatment to the convicts, care has to be taken to ensure that kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to the society. Naturally enough, the authorities would be anxious to ensure that the convict who is released on furlough does not seize the opportunity to commit another crime when he is at large for the time-being under the furlough leave granted to him by way of a measure of penal reform. 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, 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. 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 office, 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 god conduct, habitual offender or while judging whether he could be considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity etc." 20. Furthermore, Rule 1(4)(c) of Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007 is relevant and is being reproduced hereinunder. "(4) These rules shall apply to the prisoners convicted by the courts in Uttar Pradesh for the offence to which the executive power of the State extends whether confined in Jail within the State of Uttar Pradesh or outside the state but do not apply to, - (a) x x x x x (b) x x x x x (c) The prisoners against whom any other criminal case is pending before any court." 21. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner/convict is having long list of criminal cases and has been convicted in two of them, i.e. in Case Crime No.835 of 1995 under Sections 147,148,149,302 I.P.C, Police Station- Hajratganj, District- Lucknow, and in Case Crime No.511 of 2016, under Sections 302/120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Sidhari, District Azamgarh, which are in very serious nature. With regard to Rule 1(4)(c) of Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, it is pertinent to note here that nine criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, which has been specifically explained in Annexure No.3 to the instant petition. 22. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the authorities have not taken into account relevant considerations while rejecting the request for parole made on behalf of petitioner. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of parole to the petitioner, particularly, at this stage. 23. Before parting with, I acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Saurabh Singh, Research Associate, who assisted the Court relating to the present case. 24. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of parole to the petitioner, particularly, at this stage. 23. Before parting with, I acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Saurabh Singh, Research Associate, who assisted the Court relating to the present case. 24. These petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.