Allahabad High Court: While considering a batch of writ petitions, a Division Bench of Rajesh Singh Chauhan and *Rajeev Bharti, JJ., declined to grant parole to a life convict, holding that the urged grounds of medical condition, agricultural work, and arranging the marriage of his children did not justify temporary release under the U.P. (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007 (2007 Rules). Noting that the petitioner was in good health, had alternative means available for agricultural activities, and that there exists no provision for parole on the ground of arranging a child’s marriage, the Court found no infirmity in the rejection orders passed by the competent authority.
Background
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 with a fine of Rs 20,000 by the Additional Sessions Judge. His criminal appeal was dismissed by this Court in March 2021, and the special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed in March 2022, thereby affirming the conviction.
Thereafter, in May 2025, the petitioner moved a representation under Section 432 CrPC seeking short term bail on the grounds of multiple ailments, old age and humanitarian considerations; however, the same was rejected by order dated 4 June2025. The petitioner challenged the said rejection. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 5 July 2025 seeking short term bail/parole for the purpose of arranging the marriage of his son and daughter, which was also rejected by order dated 27 October 2025. Aggrieved by the rejection of the second representation, the petitioner filed the present petition before the Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner was in good health and, therefore, no substance was found in the claim seeking relief on medical grounds. However, the Court directed the jail authorities to take necessary steps considering his health.
With regards to order dated 27 October 2025 rejecting the second representation, the Court noted that parole had been sought primarily on the grounds of completing agricultural work and arranging the marriage of the petitioner’s son and daughter. It was held that under Rule 3, 2007 Rules, there is no provision for grant of parole for arranging the marriage of a son or daughter, and thus the said ground was untenable.
Further, with respect to the ground relating to agricultural work, the Court acknowledged that Rule 3(d) permits parole for sowing or harvesting of crops where no alternative arrangement is available; however, in the present case, the petitioner had three adult sons, indicating the availability of alternative means, thereby rendering the contention devoid of merit. The Court further took note of Rule 1(4)(c), 2007 Rules, which excludes applicability in cases where other criminal proceedings are pending, and observed that the petitioner had a long criminal history, including convictions in two serious offences and nine pending criminal cases.
Placing reliance on the cautionary approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55, the Court held that the competent authority had duly considered all relevant factors while rejecting the request for parole. Consequently, the Court concluded that the case was not fit for grant of parole at this stage and dismissed the petitions accordingly.
[Angad Yadav v. State of U.P., CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 848 of 2026, decided on 19-3-2026]
*Judgement authored by: Justice Rajeev Bharti
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ayodhya Prasad Mishra A.P. Mishra, Rituraj Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent: G.A.
