Mohd. Mustikim Ansari v. State NCT Of Delhi

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.03.2026 + W.P.(CRL) 607/2026 MOHD. MUSTIKIM ANSARI .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Manan, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for State with Inspector Rajeev Ranjan and SI Preeti Ahlawat, Ps Begumpur CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1.

Petitioner seeks quashing of Order No. F. 18/483/2014/HG/PRISONS /4031-33 dated 26.12.2025, whereby his request for being released on parole was rejected solely on the ground that he had been awarded major punishment in prison and his conduct was unsatisfactory. 2.

After last date, status report was filed and today I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 3.

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that he is in jail for past more than 13 years and soon he would be entitled to seek premature release. Further it is contended that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was not of a serious nature as the allegation is only that he was W.P.(CRL) 607/2026 Page 1 of 2 pages DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801 e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.03.25 18:13:05 -07'00'

By:RAHUL YADAV 18:17:07 GIRISH KATHPALIA

found in possession of tobacco, for which 15 days canteen facility was stopped.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for State in all fairness does not oppose this petition on the ground that the effect of punishment on the basis whereof the impugned order was passed has already expired as it was effective for two years only. Learned counsel for State also submits that they have verified the residential address of the petitioner, as described in the status report.

5.

Considering the above circumstances, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed, directing immediate release of the petitioner on parole for a period of three weeks subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. 6.

Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. At the time of releasing the petitioner on parole, the concerned Jail Superintendent shall inform him in writing against acknowledgment the specific date on which the petitioner has to surrender back after completion of parole period. 7.

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance.

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e 26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.03.25 18:12:49 -07'00'

GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) MARCH 25, 2026/ry W.P.(CRL) 607/2026 Page 2 of 2 pages By:RAHUL YADAV 18:17:07