Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Daulal, was convicted for offences under Sections 148, 448, 304 Part II read with 149, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Alwar, on 8 December 1988. His appeal was dismissed in 2021, and he was arrested on 23 December 2021. On 3 December 2023, he applied for permanent parole, which was rejected on 18 January 2024 on the ground that he had not applied for regular parole. He challenged this rejection before the Rajasthan High Court, and a learned Single Judge allowed his petition on 5 November 2024, directing his release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs.50,000 each. By 25 November 2024, despite complying with the conditions, he had not been released. He then approached a Division Bench, which on 6 December 2024 ordered his release forthwith. The State of Rajasthan appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the High Court's order, noting that the appellant had already served three years two months and twenty days of his sentence. The Court held that the rejection of parole on the ground of not applying for regular parole was arbitrary and that the delay in executing the High Court's order violated Article 21. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to be released on parole forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Parole - Right to Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Parole is not a privilege but a right that flows from the fundamental right to life and personal liberty - The rejection of a permanent parole application solely on the ground that the convict had not applied for regular parole is arbitrary and unsustainable - The court directed release on parole, emphasizing that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive rights (Paras 2-3). B) Criminal Procedure - Execution of Court Orders - Delay in Compliance - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The failure of prison authorities to release the appellant despite compliance with the High Court's order for over a month constitutes a violation of his fundamental right to liberty - Courts must ensure that their orders are implemented promptly and without undue delay (Paras 2-3). C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Parole - Permanent Parole - The appellant had already served three years two months and twenty days out of a four-year sentence - The High Court's order for release on permanent parole was justified given the advanced age of the appellant and the period already served - The Supreme Court upheld the order and directed immediate release (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the appellant's permanent parole application on the ground that he had not applied for regular parole was legally sustainable, and whether the delay in executing the High Court's parole order violated his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the High Court's order granting permanent parole to the appellant. The Court directed that the appellant be released on parole forthwith.
Law Points
- Parole is a right under Article 21
- not a privilege
- delay in executing parole order violates fundamental rights
- permanent parole can be granted without prior regular parole application
- courts can direct release on parole even after sentence partially served
- procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice.
