Praveen Rana v. State Gnct Of Delhi

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 + PRAVEEN RANA .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Priyal Bhardwaj, Advocate.

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

Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate with SI Amit, PS S. P. Badli.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1.

Despite last order, the petitioner did not receive any intimation regarding decision on his parole application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State submits that as per instructions conveyed to him, the parole application of petitioner still remains not decided. 2.

It appears that earlier, the petitioner filed a similar petition, W.P.(Crl) 2336/2025 seeking to be released on parole in case FIR No. 188/2017 of PS S. P. Badli for offence under Section 302 IPC. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.07.2025, with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh depending upon decision of the competent authority Page 1 of 3 pages 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556 9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709 96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.08.18 17:28:10 -07'00'

on his parole application dated 02.07.2025. Vide order dated 29.07.2025, an assurance of learned ASC was also recorded that the parole application of petitioner would be decided within time prescribed by law and positively within one week from that date, after which within next three days the decision would be conveyed to petitioner in jail. Since no decision was conveyed to the petitioner, he preferred the present writ petition. In the present writ petition on the last date, learned ASC accepted notice and sought two days to ascertain the status. Today, it is informed that parole application of the petitioner remains not decided. 3.

On being called upon to address arguments, learned counsel for respondent/State submits in all fairness that there is nothing on record to reject the relief sought by the petitioner.

4.

Granting further time to State to decide the pending parole application dated 02.07.2025 would be granting time beyond the period stipulated by law and would be contrary to the very philosophy of reformation of the convict. In any case, no such request has come from State. 5.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four 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. At the time of releasing the petitioner on parole, the concerned Jail Superintendent shall Page 2 of 3 pages 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455 69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570 996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.08.18 17:27:56 -07'00'

inform him in writing against acknowledgment the specific date on which the petitioner has to surrender back after completion of parole period. 6.

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

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4a fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5 d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879 65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.08.18 17:27:43 -07'00'

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) AUGUST 18, 2025/dr Page 3 of 3 pages