SHAHID @ BILLI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Delhi High Court sets aside parole refusal, grants two weeks' parole to convict jailed over 14 years
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the 18.09.2026 order refusing parole, and directed release on parole for two weeks on a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety. The court noted the petitioner's house needed repair.
Why it matters: The court held that denying parole after more than 14 years in jail would frustrate the purpose of reformatory tools like parole, though it said the case is not to be treated as precedent.
Summary written with AI and checked against the judgment text. It is not part of the judgment; read the full text or PDF.- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Case number
- W.P.(CRL) - 3016/2026
- Date of judgment
- 2 November 2026
- Petitioner / Appellant
- SHAHID @ BILLI
- Respondent
- STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
- CNR
- DLHC010462062026
- Outcome
- Allowed
W.P.(CRL) 3016/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages $~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02.11.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010462062026 + W.P.(CRL) 3016/2026 SHAHID @ BILLI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sangeet Sibou and Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh, Advocates with W/SI Neha, PS South Campus.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of order bearing no. F.18/13/2026/ HG/PRISONS/8259 dated 18.09.2026 and granting parole for a period of sixty days in case FIR No. 248/2010 of PS Dhaula Kuan for offence under Section 365/376(2)(g)/506 IPC.
2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of ASC.
W.P.(CRL) 3016/2026 Page 2 of 3 pages 3. The petitioner, having suffered incarceration for about 14 and half years, applied for parole, which request was declined by the competent authority by way of the presently impugned order on the ground that no emergent reason for parole was disclosed except for repair of his house and monetary arrangements.
4. The State has opposed this petition by filing two status reports.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner takes me through photographs Annexure P2 to the petition and contends that the same depict house of the petitioner in shambles. As regards identity of the premises, it is submitted by learned counsel that the said house being in a village does not have municipal number.
6. On behalf of State, the present petition is opposed on the ground that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
7. Keeping in mind that the petitioner has already spent more than 14 years in jail, denial of relief would frustrate the sacrosanct object behind reformatory tools like parole and furlough. Even otherwise, the pictures annexed with the petition do show it to be a case where the premises need repair.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set
W.P.(CRL) 3016/2026 Page 3 of 3 pages aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of two weeks subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. At the time of releasing the petitioner on parole, the concerned Jail Superintendent shall inform him in writing against acknowledgment the specific date on which the petitioner has to surrender back after completion of parole period.
9. At request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of ASC, it is made clear that the present case shall not be treated as precedent in the sense that the co-convict Usman @ Kale has been released on furlough today itself.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance.
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/as