Delhi HC Dismisses Parole Writ by Bangladeshi National Convicted of Murder, Cites Rule 1211 Bar and Unsatisfactory Jail Conduct
The Delhi High Court refused a writ of mandamus directing parole for a Bangladeshi convict serving time for murder, holding that long incarceration alone cannot override the statutory restrictions in the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, sitting singly at the High Court of Delhi, dismissed a writ petition filed by Mohd. Faruque Alwander, also known as Farukh and Genda, a Bangladeshi national convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC in FIR No. 254/2003 registered at Police Station Seemapuri, New Delhi. The petitioner sought to set aside a rejection order dated 22 April 2025 passed by the Home Department of the Government of Delhi, and a direction to release him on parole for four weeks. The Court found that Rule 1211(iv) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 specifically restricts parole for foreign convicts to exceptional circumstances requiring prior approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs, and that no such circumstances had been demonstrated here.
The Parole Application and Its Rejection
The petitioner applied for parole citing the need to maintain social ties and family relations, and to manage stress and depression arising from prolonged incarceration. The Home Department rejected the application on 22 April 2025, recording detailed reasons for doing so.
Three factors weighed against the petitioner in the departmental decision. First, as a Bangladeshi national, his case fell squarely within Rule 1211(iv) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which prohibits granting parole to foreign convicts without prior approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs, and even then, only in exceptional circumstances. Second, the petitioner had been convicted in multiple criminal cases. Third, his overall jail conduct was assessed as unsatisfactory, and the Superintendent of the Jail had not recommended his release on parole.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the successor provision to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.
The Statutory Bar Under Rule 1211(iv)
Rule 1211(iv) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 is central to this matter. The rule carves out foreign convicts as a distinct category and requires two conditions before parole can even be considered: prior approval from both the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs, and a finding that special or exceptional circumstances exist. The Court treated this as a “rule embargo” that the petitioner had not displaced.
The petitioner's stated grounds — maintaining family ties and relieving mental stress caused by incarceration — did not, in the Court's view, constitute the kind of exceptional circumstances the rule contemplates. The Court was direct on this point: the desire to maintain social and family contact, while understandable, is a common consequence of imprisonment and does not distinguish the petitioner's case from that of any long-term prisoner.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Kaurav examined the Supreme Court's decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, reported at (2017) 15 SCC 55. That decision holds that parole is not a matter of right, and that the competent authority must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct and antecedents of the convict, the likelihood of the convict absconding or misusing liberty, and the larger public interest. The Supreme Court in Asfaq also clarified that grant of parole is subject to compliance with the conditions prescribed in the applicable Prison Rules.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the competent authority had done exactly what Asfaq required. The Home Department had examined the nature of the offence, the petitioner's conviction in multiple cases, his jail conduct, and the Superintendent's adverse recommendation before declining parole. There was no procedural infirmity in the rejection, and the reasons recorded were substantial.
The Court addressed the petitioner's implicit argument that the length of incarceration itself warranted relief. It rejected that contention squarely, holding that a long period of imprisonment does not, by itself, entitle a convict to parole, particularly when the statutory rules create a specific restriction for foreign nationals and the competent authority has recorded adverse material on conduct and antecedents.
On the question of issuing a writ of mandamus, the Court held that such a writ directing parole could not be issued in the face of the rule embargo and the Asfaq framework. A writ of mandamus compels a public authority to perform a duty; here, no such duty existed in the petitioner's favour — the applicable Prison Rule, by its terms, left the grant of parole to the satisfaction of the competent authority in exceptional circumstances, with the further requirement of central government approval in the case of foreign nationals.
Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed on 13 July 2026. The rejection order dated 22 April 2025 passed by the Home Department of the Government of Delhi stands. No direction was issued for the petitioner's release on parole.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Chetan Bhardwaj and Ms. Priyal Bhardwaj, Advocates. The State was represented by Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, Additional Standing Counsel for the State.