Delhi High Court Grants 30-Day Parole To Rape Convict To File Supreme Court SLP [Read Order]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted 30 days' parole to a convict undergoing sentence in a rape case so that he can consult counsel and file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, holding that the availability of free legal aid in prison is no ground to deny parole for this purpose.

Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing a writ petition filed by Mahender Rathore under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 250/2012, registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Rohini, to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and three years' rigorous imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 05.08.2026, and he is lodged in Central Jail No. 8, Tihar.

The petitioner had applied to the Home Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi in August 2026, seeking parole to arrange financial resources and a counsel of his choice for the SLP. During the hearing, the State's Additional Standing Counsel handed over an order dated 13.10.2026, by which the Home Department rejected the parole application on the ground that the petitioner belongs to a poor segment of society and that legal aid is available free of cost in prison, which he could avail for filing the SLP.

Opposing this, the petitioner's counsel submitted that he should be granted parole as he wished to consult advocates and take appropriate steps for filing the SLP.

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Bijender v. State of NCT of Delhi, which in turn referred to Rule 1208 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Clause (viii) of that Rule lists pursuing the filing of an SLP against a High Court judgment convicting or upholding conviction as a ground on which parole may be considered. The Court also noted the observations in Neeraj Bhatt v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ved Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), where it had held that a convict's right to pursue an SLP through a counsel of his own choice cannot be withheld on the ground that free legal aid is available or that the SLP can be filed from jail.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that, as per Rule 1208 (viii), “a prisoner is entitled to parole for the purpose of filing of an SLP” against a High Court judgment convicting or upholding the conviction. It added that merely because legal aid counsel is available, that cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner the valuable right of engaging counsel to challenge the judgment upholding his conviction and sentence.

Noting the State's submission that the petitioner's address stood verified, the Court allowed the petition and granted him parole for 30 days from the date of his release, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, and shall furnish to the Jail Superintendent the address at which he will reside, not staying at any other address during parole. He must also provide his mobile number to the Jail Superintendent and the concerned Station House Officer, keep it operational at all times and inform them in advance of any change.

He shall report to the jurisdictional SHO every Sunday at 10:00 AM, and will be released after completion of formalities within a week. The Jail Superintendent shall inform him in writing of the date and time by which he must surrender, and he shall surrender upon expiry of the parole period. The petitioner must furnish a copy of the SLP to the Jail Superintendent at the time of surrender, and a copy shall also be placed on the record of the High Court. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the parole period.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Mr. Anmol K. Pandey, Ms. Jyoti Yadav and Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocates.

For the State: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, Additional Standing Counsel, with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate.

Case Title: Mahender Rathore vs. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL) 2979/2026

[Read Order]