In Jahangir @ Ekka @ Ibrahim v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2025), the Delhi High Court was called upon to decide a sensitive question of balancing rehabilitative justice with public safety concerns. The petitioner, a Bangladeshi national convicted in two life imprisonment cases, sought parole after completing over 18 years in custody. His plea was rejected by prison authorities, citing both the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which restrict parole for foreign nationals, and his past conduct of not surrendering after dismissal of an earlier appeal.
Case Title: Jahangir @ Ekka @ Ibrahim v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Citation: W.P.(CRL) 2764/2025
Judge: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Judgment Date: 1 September 2025
Facts
The petitioner, a Bangladeshi national, was serving life imprisonment in two separate cases—(i) FIR No. 254/2003 (PS Seemapuri) under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act for murder, and (ii) FIR No. 41/2011 (PS Ashok Vihar) under Sections 395/397 IPC for armed robbery. He had been in custody since 11 March 2011, having completed over 18 years and 6 months of incarceration (excluding remission).
Previously, his appeals against conviction had been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in 2009 and 2014. He had also been convicted once under Sections 380/457 IPC, for which his sentence was confined to the period already undergone, and he had been acquitted in three other cases.
In the writ petition, he had sought:
- a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 4 July 2025 of the prison authorities (GNCTD) rejecting his parole plea, and
- a writ of mandamus directing the grant of four weeks’ parole in connection with the above two FIRs.
The grounds urged had included his prolonged custody, reformative needs, and family circumstances—his wife, minor daughter, and elderly mother resided in Bangladesh, while his married sister resided in Delhi (whose address had been duly verified).
The prison department had rejected his parole application, citing Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which barred the release of foreign nationals on parole without prior approval, and had also noted his past failure to surrender after dismissal of his earlier appeal, raising apprehension of absconding.
Thus, the dispute had centred on whether his parole request merited consideration despite procedural restrictions and concerns of flight risk.
Arguments Advanced by the Petitioner
- The petitioner had applied for parole in the present case; however, the respondent/competent authority, without appreciating the contents of the application, had dismissed the same on 06.07.2023.
- The petitioner argued that he has already spent more than 18 years in prison, which in itself shows that he has paid heavily for his crimes. He argued that parole is part of the reformative process, and keeping him cut off from his family defeated the very purpose of correctional justice.
- He pointed out that his sentences in both life imprisonment cases were running concurrently, and in the other cases, he was either acquitted or sentenced to the period already undergone. Therefore, continuing to deny parole only based on his convictions was unfair.
- On the question of his absconding after his appeal was dismissed in 2009, the petitioner argued that, during that time, it was not deliberate, but rather he was a poor and illiterate man who did not even know that his appeal had been dismissed, and hence, he could not surrender at the time.
- The petitioner relied heavily on his good conduct in jail, highlighting that over 18 years, he had not committed any major or minor prison offence and had even worked as a langar sahayak. This showed that he had changed and could be trusted with freedom.
- He further argued that his family circumstances were adverse; he lost his father while in jail in 2019, and his 70-year-old mother continued to live in Bangladesh with his wife and minor daughter. His only support in India was his married sister residing in Delhi. Since the police had already verified his sister’s residence and her husband’s Indian citizenship, he contended there was no reason to doubt his place of stay during parole.
- Lastly, he submitted that the refusal of parole solely on the ground of his Bangladeshi nationality was discriminatory, as Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and foreign citizenship should not automatically imply a risk of absconding.
Arguments Advanced by the Respondent (State)
- The State argued that parole shouldn’t be granted because of the seriousness of the petitioner’s convictions, which involved murder under Section 302 IPC and armed robbery under Sections 395/397 IPC. They argued that such offences fall under the category of parole not being granted lightly.
- It was submitted that the petitioner had already shown a tendency to evade the law. After his appeal against conviction was dismissed in 2009, he failed to surrender and was later arrested in another case in 2011. This conduct, according to the State, showed that he could not be trusted to return if released again.
- The state highlighted that the petitioner was a foreign national from Bangladesh. In such cases, Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, specifically emphasised that parole should not be granted except in special circumstances and with prior approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs. Since this requirement was not met, the rejection order was valid.
- They also pointed to the prison department’s report, which said that the ground taken by the petitioner — filing of an SLP before the Supreme Court — was too generic and did not qualify as an exceptional circumstance for parole.
- Even though the police confirmed that his sister was married to an Indian citizen and resided in Delhi, the State still maintained that this did not remove the risk of absconding. Public safety and the integrity of the justice system require that parole not be granted in this case.
Issue
- Whether the petitioner, a foreign national convicted in two life imprisonment cases, can be granted parole considering his long incarceration, family support, and conduct, despite procedural lapses and concerns raised by the State.
Judgment
The Court allowed the petitioner’s request for parole for four weeks, but with certain conditions to ensure that the rules are followed. The petitioner, a citizen of Bangladesh, has been in jail for over 18 years and 6 months, not counting the remission he earned. He is serving life sentences in two cases, which are running at the same time, and was also convicted in another case where he only had to serve the time already undergone. He was acquitted in three other cases.
It was observed that even though he did not surrender after his appeal was dismissed in 2009, his behaviour in prison has been good ever since. There were no reports of any offence, major or minor, during this time. The jail’s record confirmed that his conduct over the last year, as well as overall, was satisfactory.
The Court, while referring to the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, observed that the purpose of parole is to help prisoners stay connected with their families and keep their mental and physical health intact. The same also helps prisoners develop hope and maintain discipline, which are important for their rehabilitation. The Court accepted the claim of the petitioner, who said that he wanted to live with his sister in Delhi, which, as per the police verification, was accurate.
The State argued that since the petitioner is a foreign national, he may run away if released. However, the Court noted that simply being a foreigner or having failed to surrender once cannot be the sole reason to deny parole. Such treatment would go against fairness and equality principles guaranteed by the Constitution.
After considering all the facts, the Court decided that granting parole under strict conditions would not harm public safety. Instead, it would support the goal of helping the petitioner rebuild ties with his family and regain confidence. The Court laid out conditions like providing a bond and surety, reporting weekly to the police, keeping his phone switched on, and not leaving the Delhi NCR. It also ordered him to surrender immediately once the parole period ends.
While allowing such a plea, the Court held that decisions like this must be based on fairness, the need for rehabilitation, and human values rather than strict rules or assumptions.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces the principle that rehabilitation and human dignity remain central to criminal justice, even for foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes. While public safety cannot be ignored, it must be balanced with reformative justice. By granting parole under strict safeguards, the Court affirmed that fairness, equality, and correctional goals must prevail over rigid statutory barriers.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams