Delhi HC: No absolute ban on simultaneous parole for co-accused persons

The Delhi High Court has clarified that there is no absolute prohibition on granting simultaneous parole or furlough to co-accused persons, holding that a rigid or mechanical interpretation of prison rules would defeat the reformative purpose of such provisions.

Add Asianet Newsable as a Preferred Source

The Court delivered the ruling on Wednesday while deciding petitions filed by two convicts who had challenged provisions of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, specifically note 2 of rule 1212 and note 1 of rule 1224, after being denied furlough solely on the ground that their co-accused had already been granted similar relief.

Parole Rooted in Reformative Justice

The Bench observed that parole and furlough are rooted in the principles of reformative justice and are closely linked to the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It noted that these measures are intended to enable prisoners to maintain family and social ties, preserve mental well-being, and reintegrate into society.

A blanket denial of such benefits, merely because another co-accused has been granted release, would undermine these objectives and could result in convicts being deprived of any opportunity for release for years, particularly in cases involving multiple accused persons.

'Ordinarily Not Permissible' Allows Discretion

Importantly, the Court interpreted the expression "ordinarily not permissible" in the prison rules to mean that simultaneous release is restricted but not prohibited. It emphasised that the use of the word "ordinarily" itself indicates the presence of discretion with the competent authority, and therefore, there is no complete embargo on granting parole or furlough to co-accused at the same time.

Authorities Must Assess Risk

At the same time, the Court underlined the need to strike a balance between the rights of prisoners and the interests of society. It held that while considering such requests, authorities must assess whether the simultaneous release of co-accused could pose a risk of them acting together to commit further offences, threaten witnesses, or disturb public order. However, the Court added that such risks can, in appropriate cases, be addressed by imposing suitable conditions rather than outright denial.

Rules Regulate, Not Prohibit

The Bench also clarified that the rule permitting simultaneous release of co-accused who are family members is only illustrative and does not limit the broader discretion of authorities. In appropriate situations, including where a large number of co-accused makes staggered release impractical, simultaneous furlough or parole may be granted if justified on merits.

Upholding the validity of the impugned rules, the Court concluded that they are intended to regulate, not prohibit, simultaneous release. It directed that applications must be considered on a case-by-case basis with stricter scrutiny, and that mechanical rejection would be contrary to the object of the law. (ANI)