It is absolutely in the fitness of things that while striking the right chord and upholding the fundamental right of a prisoner to get parole to conduct parents’ last rites, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ajmer Singh alias Pinka vs The State of NCT of Delhi through SHO Kanjawala in W.P.(Crl) 3146/2025 that was pronounced as recently as on 25.09.2025 has minced just no words at all to hold in no uncertain terms that:
The right to perform the last rites of a parent is an essential religious and moral duty, and denial of parole to a convict to conduct the same would violate his fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.” It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ravinder Dudeja who authored this most commendable, courageous and creditworthy judgment underscored that even though the man seeking parole in the case was convicted for the serious offence of rape, denying parole on humanitarian grounds would defeat the underlying objective of parole jurisprudence. We thus see that in this leading case, the Bench granted four weeks of parole to a convict named Ajmer Singh alias Pinka who is currently serving a 14-year sentence for rape to attend his father’s funerals and related rituals. It was also noted by the Bench that he had not availed any parole or furlough earlier and his jail conduct was recorded as satisfactory. So his case was found to be a fit case for granting parole by Delhi High Court. Absolutely right!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus for grant of emergency parole to the petitioner for a period of 02 months, to enable him to perform the last rites of his deceased father, attend to family obligations, and re-establish his social and familial ties.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 2 disclosing that:
Petitioner was convicted in case FIR No. 139/2018, PS Kanjhawala, under Sections 376/354B/506 IPC and Section 66E of IT Act and vide order on sentence dated 24.04.2025, he has been sentenced to undergo:-
- RI for 14 years alongwith fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 06 months for offence under section 376 IPC
- RI for 05 years alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 01 month for offence under section 354B IPC
- RI for 02 years alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 01 month for offence under section 506 IPC
- RI for 03 years alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 06 months for offence under Section 66E of IT Act
All sentences are to run concurrently.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that:
Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail-02, Tihar Jail, New Delhi and has at present undergone incarceration of about 01 year and 09 months 15 days (excluding remission) out of RI for 14 years and fine. It is stated that the petitioner’s father passed away on 16.09.2025 due to a heart attack- a fact duly verified by the Investigating Officer. The copies of the death summary of the petitioner’s father and cremation receipt have been placed on record.”
As it turned out, while elaborating further on the facts of the case, the Bench enunciates in para 4 stating that:
Ld. Counsel further submits that the petitioner being the eldest son, is required to perform the last rites and customary rituals of his late father and therefore he has filed the present petition seeking grant of parole for a period of 02 months to attend the final rites/“Tehravi” of his deceased father fixed on 26.09.2025. It is further stated that the petitioner has not availed any spell of parole/furlough during his incarceration and his jail conduct as per the Nominal Roll dated 25.09.2025 has been “Satisfactory”. He has accordingly prayed for parole on humanitarian grounds.”
Having said this, we ought to note that the Bench then also mentions in para 5 that:
The Ld. ASC for the State apprised the Court that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a grave and serious nature. He submits that as per the instructions received from the Investigating Officer, the fact that petitioner’s father passed away on 16.09.2025 and the final rites/“Tehravi” ceremony being scheduled on 26.09.2025 has been duly verified and fairly states that for the limited purpose of performing the last rites of his father, release of the petitioner on parole can be considered due to the emergent situation.”
Further, the Bench mentions in para 6 that:
On the aspect of parole sought for 02 months, Ld. ASC contends that as per Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, parole cannot be granted for more than 04 weeks.”
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 7 that:
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 8 that:
The Nominal Roll dated 25.09.2025 received from Superintendent of Prison, Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi reflects that the present petitioner has not availed any spell of furlough/parole on any occasion during his period of incarceration and that his conduct has been “Satisfactory”.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 9 noting that:
Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 reads as under:-
1212. A convict would be released on parole for a period of maximum eight weeks in minimum two spells in a conviction year. However, the period of release in one spell should not be more than four weeks. There should be one month gap between parole and last furlough availed and vice–versa.
Note:- (1) If the convict has applied for extension after surrendering from the original parole or his application for parole is pending decision when he surrendered after availing original parole then his case will be considered as fresh case.
(2) Simultaneous parole to co-accused is ordinarily not permissible, however, in exceptional circumstances competent authority may consider for reasons in writing for granting parole to co-accused who are family members.””
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most commendably, the Bench encapsulates in para 10 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
In the present case, the petitioner has to attend the final rites/“Tehravi” of his deceased father and he seeks grant of parole for 02 months on this ground. It is well settled that parole is an established facet aimed at enabling a convict to maintain family and social ties and to discharge essential obligations. The right to perform last rites of a parent is an essential religious and moral duty. Denial of parole in such circumstances would violate the petitioner’s right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court is mindful of the fact that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a grave and serious nature, but to deny parole in existence of a humanitarian ground would amount to a mechanical application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying parole jurisprudence.”
Most rationally and most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 11 holding succinctly that:
Considering the peculiar facts that the petitioner’s father expired on 16.09.2025 and that the final rites/“Tehravi” ceremony is scheduled on 26.09.2025, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be released on parole for a limited period.”
What’s more, the Bench then further observes in para 12 stipulating that, “Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of 04 weeks from the date of release, subject to the following conditions:
- Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent;
- He shall reside only at the address mentioned in the memo of parties and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station without prior intimation;
- He shall report to the SHO, PS Kanjhawala, once a week, every Tuesday at 10:00 AM. The concerned officer shall release the petitioner by 11:00 AM after recording his presence and completing all necessary formalities;
- The petitioner shall provide his mobile number to the concerned jail authorities and to the Investigating Officer and ensure it remains operational at all times;
- He shall not directly/indirectly attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not indulge in any criminal activity;
- He shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent immediately upon expiry of the parole period.
For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 13 mentioning that:
It is made clear that breach of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of parole forthwith.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 15 that, “Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.”
In essence, it merits just no reiteration that it is a most robust, refreshing, remarkable and rational judgment by the Delhi High Court which deserves to be emulated in similar such cases. It is made abundantly clear by the Delhi High Court that the right to perform the last rites of a parent is an essential religious and moral duty, and denial of parole to a convict to conduct the same would violate his fundamental right to life under Article 21 of Constitution. Also, it was made indubitably clear that being convicted of a heinous crime cannot be a logical ground to deny parole in such compelling case! Very rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
