Blog

Case Title – Rahul Dev Vs. State GNCTD of Delhi

Case Number – Writ Petition (Crl.). 1215/2024

Dated on – 26^th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Amit Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

In The Case of Rahul Dev Vs. State GNCTD of Delhi, the Appellant in the said case, Rahul Dev, has filed a petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973.  The Appellant in this case, sought for parole for a period of four weeks for the purpose of his engagement and marriage ceremony. The engagement was scheduled for the date 27^th of April, 2024 and the marriage ceremony to be held on 30^th of April,2024. Both the engagement as well as the marriage to be held at Arya Samaj Mandir, 74B, Khanna Market, Tis Hazari, Delhi- 110054. The Superintendent of the Prison, Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi, provided a nominal roll dated 24^th of April, 2024, signifying that the petitioner has been in custody for 14 years, 6 months, and 25 days (with remission). A status report from the Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi, shows that the Appellant in the present case priorly availed parole from the 29^th of January, 2024 to the 5^th of March, 2024, as granted by a coordinate bench of the court. The Appellant in the present case, Rahul Dev, surrendered on the 6^th of March, 2024.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

1. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the Appellant to be granted parole for the purpose of his engagement as well as marriage.
2. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the ceremonies of engagement as well as marriage are scheduled on the dated 27^th of April,2024 and 30^th of April, 2024 respectively, which are the significant events of the Appellant’s life.
3. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, has complied with the essential procedures and furnished the court with all the relevant documents supporting their plea for parole.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent, through their counsel in the said case, did not contradict the grant of parole to the Appellant but requested the court for an imposition of appropriate conditions for the release of the Appellant.
2. The Respondent, through their counsel in the said case, acknowledged the right of the Appellant to attend his engagement as well as marriage but also emphasized on the importance of ensuring the safety of the public and the compliance of the Appellant with the law during the parole period.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India authorizes the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose that the High Courts deem fit.
2. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 grants the High Courts with inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or else secure the ends of justice.

ISSUES

1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the Appellant should be granted with the parole for his engagement as well as his marriage ceremonies?
2. Whether the conditions should be imposed on the release of the Appellant to ensure the compliance as well as the safety of the public?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Rahul Dev Vs. State GNCTD of Delhi, after taking into consideration the contentions of both the Appellant as well as the Respondent and examining the facts and circumstances of the case, found merit in the case of the Appellant and their plea for parole for the purpose of attending his engagement as well as the marriage ceremony. The court, in this present case, observed that the engagement as well as the marriage ceremony, are the significant events of the Appellant’s life. However, the court also emphasized on the need to balance the rights of the Appellant with the safety of the public and the compliance of law. The court, accordingly, granted the parole to the Appellant for a period of two weeks from the date of his release, subject to certain conditions to ensure the compliance with law of the Appellant and the safety of the public. The court stated the conditions as furnishing a personal bond, providing the details of the residence and the local police station, reporting to the SHO once a week, furnishing a contact number, and surrendering promptly at the end of the parole period. The court ordered the instant release of the Appellant upon compliance with the stated conditions. The court directed the uploading of the Court Order on the website of the court and sending a copy of the same to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment