The Delhi High Court recently held that the mere wish of an undertrial facing prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to console his ailing parents is not a sufficient ground for granting emergent custodial parole.
The bench dealt with an application by an accused in a UAPA matter who sought two weeks’ custody parole in order to visit and be with his gravely ill father and brother. The court noted that the request was based purely on humanitarian grounds and family proximity. The High Court evaluated whether the plea met the conditions for manic release of parole specifically from jail for custodial visiting—particularly keeping in view the seriousness of the charges, the stage of trial and the statutory provisions that apply in UAPA cases.
In its decision, the court observed that while the right to personal liberty and family life are important, those rights must be balanced against the statutory scheme created by the UAPA, which mandates stricter parameters for bail and release. The court emphasised that prima facie humanitarian considerations like consoling sick parents, although sympathisable, do not by themselves override the statutory bar or the wider public interest in such matters. The bench found that the application failed to demonstrate any exceptional ground, beyond the family circumstance, to justify deviation from the normal custodial rules in UAPA cases.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the parole application. It held that under the prison rules and applicable legal scheme for under-trial prisoners under UAPA, a mere desire to meet or console seriously ill family is not per se a ground for emergent custodial relief. The decision makes clear that in UAPA-type proceedings—characterised by national security or organised unlawful activity concerns—courts may require evidence of acute medical emergency of the family member, irreparable disruption or loss, or other exceptional humanitarian ground before granting parole.
The ruling underscores the rigidity of legal safeguards in UAPA matters and the high threshold for custodial parole, even on humanitarian grounds. It serves as a caution that under-trials facing severe charges under special legislation cannot presume release merely because of family health emergencies. The court reaffirmed that each case must be closely examined, considering the nature of the offence, stage of trial, danger of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the strength of the prosecution’s case.
In summary, the Delhi High Court’s order clarifies that the under-trial’s wish to console ill parents—though understandable—does not automatically entitle one to emergent parole under UAPA where statutory constraints and public interest weigh heavily.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.