Delhi High Court – Orders
Praveen @ Lallu vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 May, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 722/2026
PRAVEEN @ LALLU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC
(Criminal) with Mr. Arijt Sharma,
Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates.
SI Praveen Kumar P.S. Karawal
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 04.05.2026
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner assails an order dated 27.01.2026, by which his request for
parole has been declined by the Competent Authority.
2. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections
363/366/376DA/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
[“the POCSO Act“] in connection with FIR No. 532/2018 registered at
Police Station Karawal Nagar.
3. By the judgment of the learned Sessions Court dated 10.05.2024,
he was convicted of offences under Sections 363/366/376DA/377/34 of
the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The learned Sessions Court, by
order on sentence dated 10.07.2024, sentenced him as follows:
W.P.(CRL) 722/2026 Page 1 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 22:18:20
a. Rigorous imprisonment of two years, alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/-
for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC; in default of
payment, he was to undergo further imprisonment of six months.
b. Rigorous imprisonment of three years, alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/-
for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC; in default of
payment, he was to undergo further imprisonment of six months.
c. Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the
offence under Section 376DA of the IPC; in default of payment, he
was to undergo further imprisonment of twelve months.
d. Rigorous imprisonment of ten years, alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/-
for the offence under Section 377 of the IPC; in default of
payment, he was to undergo further imprisonment of six months.
The sentences were to run concurrently. The petitioner was not separately
sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, in view of Section 42
therein, which provides for the imposition of an alternative punishment
for certain offences, where such punishment is greater in degree than the
punishment under the POCSO Act.
4. The petitioner’s appeal1 against the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order on sentence was dismissed by a judgment of this
Court dated 20.08.2025.
5. The petitioner applied for parole in the month of November 2025
on the ground that he wished to file a Special Leave Petition [“SLP”]
against the aforesaid judgment through a private counsel. The petitioner’s
request was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.01.2026, holding
that a convict under the POCSO Act is not entitled to parole, absent
W.P.(CRL) 722/2026 Page 2 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 22:18:20
“special circumstances”, by virtue of Rule 1211(VII) of the Delhi Prison
Rules, 2018 [“the Prison Rules”]. It was also stated that the petitioner’s
case is barred by Rule 1210 (II) of the Prison Rules, which requires a
prisoner, who has been awarded major punishment for any prison
offence, to have displayed conduct which is uniformly good for the last
two years from the date of the application. Reference was made to
punishments imposed upon the petitioner on 26.04.2024 and 04.07.2024.
6. I have heard Mr. Anindya Malhotra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State.
7. The Nominal Roll placed on record shows that as of 13.04.2026,
the petitioner had undergone 7 years, 4 months, and 15 days of actual
custody, which implies that he has now undergone custody for over 7
years and 5 months, and has also earned remission for 4 months and 18
days. The petitioner’s jail conduct during the last one year has been
certified as “SATISFACTORY”, and his overall jail conduct has been
certified as “UNSATISFACTORY”, in view of the following punishments:
“1. PUN. DATED 04.09.2024 – FOUGHT WITH CO-INAMTE –
WARNED BY SCJ.
2. PUN. DATED 04.07.2024 – MISBEHAVE WITH DAP STAFF – 05
DAYS FAMILY MULAKAT STOPPED.
3. PUN. DATED 26.04.2024 – BEATEN HIS CO-INMATE – 07 DAYS
FAMILY MULAKAT STOPPED.
4. PUN.DATED 19.03.2024 – BEATEN HIS CO-INMATE – WARNED
BY SCJ.
5. PUN. DATED 22.11.2023 – FOUGHT WITH CO-INMATE –
WARNED BY SCJ.
6. PUN. DATED 04.08.2023 – MISBEHAVE WITH STAFF –
WARNED BY SCJ.
7. PUN. DATED 14.02.2023 – MISBEHAVE WITH STAFF –
1
CRL.A. 826/2024.
W.P.(CRL) 722/2026 Page 3 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 22:18:20
WARNED BY SCJ
8. PUN. DATED 04.06.2020 – MOBILE PHONE RECOVERED –
TWO WEEKS MULAKAT STOPPED”
8. The relevant Prison Rules are reproduced below:
“1208. Subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated in Rule 1210
below, it would be open to the Competent authority to consider
applications for parole on the grounds such as: –
xxx xxx xxx
viii. To pursue the filing of a Special Leave Petition before the
Supreme Court of India against a judgment delivered by the High
Court convicting or upholding the conviction, as the case may be.
xxx xxx xxx
1210. In order to be eligible for release on parole in terms of Rule
above: –
xxx xxx xxx
II. The conduct of the Prisoner who has been awarded major
punishment for any prison offence should have been uniformly good
for last two years from the date of application and the conduct of
Prisoner who has been awarded minor punishment or no punishment
for any prison offence in prison should have been uniformly good for
last one year from the date of application.
xxx xxx xxx
1211. In the following cases, parole shall not be granted, except, if in
the discretion of the competent authority special circumstances exist
for grant of parole;
xxx xxx xxx
VII. If the prisoner is convicted under POCSO;"
9. The position that a convict under the POCSO Act is not ordinarily
entitled to parole is clear from Rule 1211 (VII) of the Prison Rules.
However, an exception has been made in the rule itself, on account of
“special circumstances”. The requirement of filing of a SLP before the
Supreme Court, even in the case of POCSO convicts, has been regarded
as a “special circumstance”, entitling the convict to release on parole.
W.P.(CRL) 722/2026 Page 4 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 22:18:20
The decisions of this Court in Neeraj Bhatt v. State (NCT of Delhi)2,
Pappu v. the State NCT of Delhi3, Sunil Sharma v. the State NCT of
Delhi4, Mohd. Iqbal v. State of NCT of Delhi5, Chhote Lal v. State of NCT
of Delhi6, and Bhola Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi7 may be referred to
in this connection.
10. The difficulty in the present case arises from the fact that the
petitioner has been subjected to various punishments during his period of
custody. In the impugned order, the Competent Authority has referred to
the punishments dated 26.04.2024 and 04.07.2024, in both of which
family mulakat was stopped, due to beating of a co-accused and
misbehavior with the staff of the Delhi Armed Police, respectively. The
question thus arises, as to whether the petitioner’s conduct in the last two
years ought to disentitle him of the benefit of parole for the purpose of
filing of SLP.
11. The judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Neeraj Bhatt
was rendered in a similar context. There too, the petitioner was a convict
under the POCSO Act, who had sought parole for filing of an SLP. The
request was opposed on the ground of prior jail punishments. The Court,
however, opined as follows:
“7. The bar in the said rule is not absolute since the competent
authority has the discretion, even in such cases, to grant parole,
provided there exist special circumstances. Though the special
circumstances were to be considered by the competent authority, the
impugned order does not refer to the special circumstances and that2
2023 SCC OnLine Del 32 [hereinafter, “Neeraj Bhatt”].
3
W.P.(CRL.) 713/2025, decided on 25.07.2025.
4
W.P.(CRL.) 2924/2025, decided on 13.10.2025.
5
W.P.(CRL.) 3419/2025, decided on 12.11.2025.
6
W.P.(CRL.) 371/2026, decided on 10.02.2026.
7
2026 SCC OnLine Del 622.
W.P.(CRL) 722/2026 Page 5 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 22:18:20
they were found insufficient for grant of parole, rather it only mentions
that the SLP can be filed from the jail itself and that the conduct of the
applicant was not satisfactory.
8. In this Court’s opinion, the right of a citizen to avail a legal remedy
in the final court of country, which may often be the last ray of hope,
cannot be denied on such ground.
9. As per Rule 1211 of Delhi Prison Rule, 2018, it clearly mentions
that parole in the circumstances mentioned in the said Rule can be
granted in the discretion of the competent authority if special
circumstances exist for grant of parole. The ground taken by the
petitioner for grant of parole in the present case is filing of SLP
against the judgment of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
391/2020 which was decided on 04.07.2022 whereby the judgment of
conviction dated 05.12.2019 and order on sentence dated 19.12.2019
were upheld. It is the right of a citizen to effectively pursue his legal
remedy in the last court of justice in the county by filing SLP
through a counsel of his own choice which is a valuable right. This
cannot be withheld merely on the basis of his past conduct or on the
ground that free legal aid is available and that SLP can be filed from
the jail itself. Needless to say, availing his legal remedy in the Apex
Court of the country is the right of the petitioner and this Court is not
inclined to withdraw the same.
10. While passing this order, this Court also remains conscious of the
fact that the present accused/applicant has remained in judicial
custody since the day of arrest i.e. 11.05.2014 and is continuously in
the jail for around eight years and six months, excluding remission.”8
12. The aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the present case. Here
also, the concession of parole is sought for the purpose of availing a legal
remedy before the Supreme Court, and the petitioner has been in custody
for a period of over 7 years and 5 months since the date of his arrest as an
undertrial.
13. Having regard to the view taken in Neeraj Bhatt, I am therefore of
the view that the petitioner in the present case is entitled to be released on
parole.
14. Mr. Bhandari submits that the petitioner’s home address is in
8
Emphasis supplied.
W.P.(CRL) 722/2026 Page 6 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 22:18:20
Ghaziabad, which is outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi. I am
of the view that appropriate safeguards can be placed to ensure that the
petitioner remains available to undergo the remainder of his sentence.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid position, the petition is allowed, and
the petitioner is granted parole for a period of three weeks from the date
of his release for the purpose of filing a Special Leave Petition against the
judgment of this Court, subject to the following conditions.
a. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. At least one of
the sureties must be a member of the petitioner’s family.
b. The petitioner shall furnish the address at which he shall reside
during the period of parole to the Jail Superintendent, and shall not
reside at any other address during the said period. The Jail
Superintendent shall be at liberty to get the address of the petitioner
verified, before accepting the bond.
c. The petitioner shall furnish his mobile number to the Jail
Superintendent and Station House Officer [“SHO”], Police Station
Karawal, which shall be kept operational at all times. In the event
of any change of mobile phone number, the Station House Officer
and the Jail Superintendent shall be informed in advance.
d. The petitioner shall report to the SHO, Police Station Karawal,
where the subject FIR was registered, on every Monday and
Thursday at 11:00 AM, during the period of parole, and shall be
released after completion of formalities within a period of two
hours.
W.P.(CRL) 722/2026 Page 7 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 22:18:20
e. At the time of his release, the Jail Superintendent shall inform the
petitioner in writing of the date and time, by which he is required
to surrender. The petitioner shall surrender before the Jail
Superintendent, before the expiry of the period of parole.
f. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the Special Leave Petition
filed before the Supreme Court to the Jail Superintendent, at the
time of surrender. A copy of the Special Leave Petition shall also
be placed on the record of this case.
g. The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the
period of parole.
16. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above.
17. Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 4, 2026
SS/KA/W.P.(CRL) 722/2026 Page 8 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 22:18:20
