Accused Can't Be Denied Right To File SLP On Ground Of Unsatisfactory Jail Conduct: Delhi High Court Grants Parole

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to effectively pursue legal remedy by filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which is the last hope for availing justice, cannot be denied to an accused on the ground of “unsatisfactory conduct.”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that such a right cannot be withheld or the remedy denied to an accused on the ground that free legal aid is available in the jail and SLP can be filed from there. 

“Courts have consistently emphasized that the right of a convict to file a Special Leave Petition challenging the dismissal of their criminal appeal by a High Court is crucial right. This right cannot be denied based on the availability of free legal aid in jail and the possibility of filing the SLP from the jail premises,” the court said.

Justice Sharma made the observations while granting parole of four weeks to an accused who challenged an order passed by the competent authority refusing to grant him parole for three months.

The court pulled up the competent authority for passing the impugned order in a “mechanical manner” and said that it had escaped the notice of the authority that the behaviour of the accused was satisfactory as per the nominal roll and no major or minor punishment was meted out to him after May 2017.

The authority had rejected the accused's application for release on parole on October 09. This was done on the ground that his overall jail conduct, as per the nominal roll, was reported to be unsatisfactory and that he may file SLP from jail itself, where free legal aid facility is available to all prisoners.

Observing that the accused was entitled to bail even as per rules, the court said:

“Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned herein was an order passed in a mechanical manner, without appreciating the contents of nominal roll and the rules for grant of parole under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.”

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj & Mr. Rajat Rajoria Singh, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Jasraj Singh Chhabra & Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocates for Ms. Nadita Rao, ASC (Criminal) for the State

Title: VINOD KUMAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 2