# Angad Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 74
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-19
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Rajeev Bharti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/angad-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54294
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assigned to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the injured, common and general role has
been assigned to six accused persons regarding causing injuries by hard and blunt object and sharp edged
weapon but only three injuries are noted in the medical report, in the X-ray report NAD is noted, as per
instructions of learned A.G.A. dated 16.09.2025, investigation is going on and keeping in view the
uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement
2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 &
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released
on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned with the following conditions that:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the
dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as
directed by the court concerned.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening
of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain
circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the
trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before
the bonds are accepted.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 74
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 848 of 2026 alongwith other cases

Angad Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
3 All. Angad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
75
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether a convicted prisoner undergoing life imprisonment and having multiple criminal
antecedents and pending criminal cases was entitled to grant of parole/short-term bail under the Uttar
Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007 on humanitarian, medical, agricultural, and familyrelated grounds, and whether the rejection orders passed by the competent authorities suffered from any
legal infirmity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302/34, 147, 148, 149, 302/120-B - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s. 432 - U.P. (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007 - R. 1(4)(c) and 3 -
Representation for Parole - Medical Ailments - Rejected - Validity of - The petitioner, a life
convict incarcerated in connection with Case Crime No. 835 of 1995, whose conviction and
sentence had already been affirmed by High Court and by Hon'ble Supreme Court, instituted
multiple criminal miscellaneous writ petitions challenging the rejection of his representations
seeking parole/short-term bail under the Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners)
Rules, 2007 - The petitioner sought temporary release primarily on grounds of advanced age,
medical ailments, humanitarian considerations, agricultural necessities, and for arranging the
marriage of his son and daughter - The competent authorities, however, rejected the
representations on the grounds that Rules did not contemplate parole for arranging marriages,
that sufficient alternative family arrangements for agricultural work were available, and that the
petitioner had a substantial criminal history, including convictions in serious offences and
pendency of several criminal cases - Aggrieved by rejection orders dated 04.06.2025 and
27.10.2025, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of High Court seeking quashing of said
orders and consequential release on parole/short-term bail.

Held: From a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner/convict is having long list of criminal cases
and has been convicted in two of them, i.e. in Case Crime No.835 of 1995 u/ss. 147,148,149,302 I.P.C, Police
Station - Hajratganj, District- Lucknow, and in Case Crime No.511 of 2016, u/ss. 302/120-B I.P.C., Police
Station - Sidhari, District Azamgarh, which are in very serious nature - With regard to Rule 1(4)(c) of Uttar
Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, it is pertinent to note that nine criminal cases are
pending against the petitioner, which has been specifically explained in the instant petition - Thus, it cannot
be said that the authorities have not taken into account relevant considerations while rejecting the request for
parole made on behalf of petitioner - Therefore, it is not a fit case for the grant of parole to the petitioner.
[Paras 21, 22] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan &others, (2017) 15 SCC 55 - referred to

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; U.P. (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules,
2007

List of Keywords
Criminal Misc. writ petition; Life imprisonment; Conviction order; Sentence affirmed; Special Leave to Appeal;
Representation; s. 432 Cr.P.C.; Short term bail; Humanitarian grounds; Multiple ailments; Old age; Parole; Writ
of certiorari, Writ of mandamus; Suspension of sentence; Medical ground; Agricultural work; Marriage of son
and daughter; Sufficient means; Alternative arrangements; Convicted u/s 302 I.P.C; Pending criminal cases;
 Not a fit case for parole; Public peace and tranquility; Good behavior; Habitual offender; Petition dismissed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ Jurisdiction No. - 848 of 2026
Connected with
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5870 of 2025)
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
And
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10859 of 2025)
From the Order dated 27.10.2025 vide letter No. 1531-32/जि0प्रो0का0/बन्दी-पैरोल/2025-26 passed by the
District Magistrate, Agamgarh in Second Representation filed by petitioner on 05.07.2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
Ayodhya Prasad Mishra A.P. Mishra, Rituraj Mishra

Adv. for the Respondent(s):
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Bharti, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bipul
Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. All the aforesaid writ petitions pertain to the same petitioner as also the grievance of the
petitioner is similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all these petitions
are being decided by a common order.

3. At present the petitioner is in jail in connection with Crime No. 835 of 1995, as he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. with a fine of
Rs.20,000/- by learned trial court, i.e. VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in S.T. No.579 of
1996. Being aggrieved against the conviction order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of
filing Criminal Appeal No.1044 of 2020, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 16.03.2021. Being aggrieved against the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1922 of 2022,
which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2022, copy of which is annexed as Annexure
No.C.A.1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.10859 of
2025, hence the order passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed.

4. On 20.05.2025 a representation has been moved on behalf of the petitioner before the State
Authorities under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
'Cr.P.C.') seeking short term bail on the ground of petitioner's multiple ailment, old age and
humanitarian grounds for a period of two months. Thereafter on 26.06.2025 the petitioner
approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.5870 of 2025 seeking the
following main prayers:-

(a) issue writ, order/orders or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties to consider the representation for grant of his release for short period dated
20.05.2025 submitted before respondents on humanitarian ground as early as possible and till
disposal of his representation dated 20.05.2025, he may be permitted to furnish bonds for his
release for such period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper before the court concerned
or till disposal of his representation dated 20.05.2025 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ
petition, in the ends of justice;
3 All. Angad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
77

5. Learned State Counsel in his counter affidavit submitted that the representation dated
20.05.2025 made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.06.2025. The same is
being reproduced hereinbelow :-

उत्तर प्रदेश शासन
कारागार प्रशासन एवं सुधार अनुभाग-3
संख्या-243 िेएल/22-3-2025-ई-1932376
लखनऊः ददनांकः 04-06-2025

श्री अमर बहादुर यादव,

पुत्र अंगद यादव

ननवासी ग्राम-मूसेपुर, पोस्ट-सदर,

थाना-ससधारी, िनपद-आिमगढ़।

कृपया प्रमुख सचिव, गृह, उ०प्र० शासन को सम ्‌बोचधत अपने पैरोल प्राथथना-पत्र ददनांक 20-05-2025 का
संदभथ ग्रहण करें, जिसके द्वारा केन्रीय कारागार, नैनी प्रयागराि में ननरूद्ध अपने पपता/ससद्धदोष बंदी
अंगद यादव पुत्र स्व० रामबदन यादव को बंदी की गंभीर बीमारी के कारण मानवीय आधार पर उत्तर प्रदेश
(बंददयों के दण्डादेश का ननलम्बन) ननयमावली-2007 के अन्तगथत पैरोल पर ररहा ककये िाने का अनुरोध
ककया गया है।

2- इस सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराना है कक उत्तर प्रदेश (बंददयों के दण्डादेश का ननलम्बन) ननयमावली,
2007 के ननयम-3 में बंदी को स्वयं के उपिार हेतु पैरोल (दण्ड का अस्थाई ननलम्बन) स्वीकृत ककये िाने का
प्रावधान नहीं होने के दृजटटगत केन्रीय कारागार, नैनी प्रयागराि में ननरूद्ध ससद्धदोष बंदी अंगद यादव पुत्र
स्व० रामबदा यादव, ननवासी िनपद-आिमगढ़ स्वयं के उपिार हेतु पैरोल का पात्र नहीं है। अतः आपके
पैरोल प्राथथना-पत्र ददनांक 20-05-2025 को सम्यक पविारोपरान ्‌त सक्षम प्राचधकारी द्वारा अस्वीकृत करते
हुए ननस्ताररत कर ददया गया है।

6. Challenging the order dated 04.06.2025, the petitioner again approached this Court by way
of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.10859 of 2025 with the following main prayer(s):-

"(a) issue writ, order/orders or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order
dated 04.06.2025 vide No.243 J.L./22-3-2025-E-1932376 passed by Respondent No.6 contained as
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition;

(b) to issue writ, order/orders in the nature of mandamus commanding the state
authorities concerned to release the petitioner on parole/short-term bail whatsoever this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be deemed fit and proper in the ends of justice."
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Thereafter another representation dated 05.07.2025 was preferred on behalf of petitioner
before the State Authorities for grant of short term bail/parole on the ground of settling the
marriage of petitioner's son and daughter, however, the said representation also met with the same
fate and was rejected on 27.10.2025. The same is being reproduced hereinudner :-

प्रेषक,

जिला मजिस्रेट,

आिमगढ़ ।

सेवा में,

महाननदेशक,

कारागार प्रशासन एवं सुधार सेवाएं अनुभाग-3,

उ०प्र० शासन लखनऊ।

पत्रांक- 1531-32/जि0प्रो0का0/बन्दी-पेरौल/2025-26/ ददनांक 27.10.25

पवषयः- जिला कारागार, आिमगढ़ में ननरुद्ध ससद्धदोष बन्दी अंगद यादव पुत्र राम बदन यादव,
ननवासी ग्राम मोिरापुर, थाना कोतवाली, िनपद आिमगढ़ को 02 माह के पैरोल पर मुक्त करने हेतु िांि
आख्या/संस्तुनत का प्रेषण।

महोदय,

कृपया उपरोक्त पवषयक वररटठ िेल अधीक्षक, केन्रीय कारागार, नैनी, प्रयागराि के पत्र संख्या
2031/ए0आर0-1, ददनांक 07.078.2025 का सन्दभथ ग्रहण करने का कटट करें, जिसके द्वारा पवषयांककत
ससद्धदोष बन्दी अंगद यादव पुत्र राम बदन यादव, ननवासी ग्राम मोिरापुर, थाना-कोतवाली, िनपद
आिमगढ़ को उसकी पुत्र व पुत्री की शादी हेतु 60 ददन के पैरोल पर मुक्त करने के सम्बन्ध में सुस्पटट
आख्या/असभमत शासन को उपलब्ध कराये िाने की अपेक्षा की गयी है।
उक्त के क्रम में ससद्धदोष बन्दी अंगद यादव पुत्र राम बदन यादव, ननवासी ग्राम मोिरापुर, थाना कोतवाली,
िनपद आिमगढ़ को अपनी पुत्री की शादी हेतु पैरोल पर मुक्त करने के सम्बन्ध में िांि आख्या/संस्तुनत
उपलब्ध कराये िाने हेतु जिला प्रोबेशन अचधकारी कायाथलय पत्र संख्या सी० 333, ददनांक 24.07.2025 एवं
अनुस्मारक पत्र संख्या सी0 1429, ददनांक 29.09.2025 के द्वारा वररटठ पुसलस अधीक्षक, आिमगढ़ को पत्र
प्रेपषत ककया गया था, जिसके क्रम में वररटठ पुसलस अधीक्षक, आिमगढ़ ने अपने पत्र संख्या िी0आर0मेमो-
383/2025, ददनांक 08.10.2025 के द्वारा अपनी िांि आख्या/संस्तुनत प्रेपषत की है, िो ननम्नवत हैः-

1.
बंदी का संक्षक्षप्त अपराचधक इनतहास।

बंदी असभयुक्त अंगद यादव के पवरुद्ध थाना
स्थानीय पर ननन्न असभयोग पंिीकृत है।
3 All. Angad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
79
1.्‌ मु0अ0सं0-526/2000 धारा 147/504 भादपव थाना ससधारी, आिमगढ़।
2. मु0अ0सं0-527/2000 धारा 147/148/149/307/302/323/504/506 भादपव थाना
ससिारी, आिमगढ़।
3. मु0अ0सं0-200/2016 धारा 302/120बी भादपव थाना ससधारी, आिमगढ़
पंिीकृत है, जिसमें उक्त बंदी को जिला कारागार नैनी में ननरुद्ध ककया गया है।
4. मु0अ0सं0-78/2016 बारा-3 (1) यू०पी० गैंगेस्टर एक्ट थाना ससधारी,
आिमगढ़।

2.
बंदी के पररवार के वयस्क सदस्यों का
पववरण

1.्‌ पवमला यादव पत्नी अंगद यादव उम्र करीब 69 वषथ
2. संतोष यादव पुत्र अंगद यादव उम्र करीब 50 वषथ।
3. आलोक यादव पुत्र अंगद यादव उम्र करीब 45 वषथ।
4. अमर यादव पुत्र अंगद यादव उम्र करीब 30 वषथ।
5. गौरी यादव पुत्री अंगद यादव उम्र करीब 40 वषथ।
6. गररमा यादव पुत्री अंगद यादव उम्र करीब 32 वषथ।
7. पूनम यादव पत्नी आलोक यादव उम्र करीब 43 वषथ।
8. रानी यादव पत्नी संतोष यादव उम्र करीब 48 वषथ।

3.
बन्दी द्वारा पूवथ में भोगे गये पैरोल गृह
अवकाश का पववरण

बंदी उपरोक्त कभी भी पैरोल/गृह अवकाश पर नहीं आया।

4.
बन्दी की पुत्र व पुत्र के पववाह के संबंध में
आख्या।
बंदी को पैरोल पर मुक्त ककये िाने अथवा न
ककये
िाने
के
संबंध
में
आपकी
संस्तुनत(स्पटट कारणों सदहत)

बन्दी अंगद यादव पुत्र रामबदन यादव द्वारा अपने पुत्र व पुत्री के पववाह तय करने
हेतु पैरोल की मांग की गयी है। पववाह पूवथ से तय नहीं है। पववाह की नतचथ ननयत
नहीं है।
बंदी अंगद यादव एक आपराचधक प्रवृपत्त का व्यजक्त है। मात्र पुत्र व पुत्री के पववाह
एवं वर वधू की तलाश हेतु पैरोल की मांग की गयी है। पैरोल पर ददये िाने का कोई
औचित्य प्रतीत नहीं हो पा रहा है। उक्त की संस्तुनत नहीं की िाती है।

उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर वररटठ पुसलस अधीक्षक आिमगढ़ द्वारा बन्दी अंगद यादव पुत्र रामबदन
यादव, ननवासी ग्राम मोिरापुर, थाना कोतवाली, िनपद आिमगढ़ को पैरोल पर मुक्त करने की संस्तुनत
नहीं की गयी है।

अतः वररटठ पुसलस अधीक्षक आिमगढ़ की आख्या से सहमत होते हुए बन्दी अंगद यादव पुत्र रामबदन
यादव, ननवासी ग्राम मोिरापुर, थाना कोतवाली, िनपद आिमगढ़ को पैरोल पर मुक्त करने की संस्तुनत
नहीं की िाती है।
उपरोक्तानुसार आख्या अचग्रम कायथवाही हेतु प्रेपषत है।
संलग्नक: वररटठ पुसलस अधीक्षक, आिमगढ़ की आख्या।
भवदीय,
जिला मजिस्रेट,
आिमगढ़ ।
25.10.25
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Being aggrieved against the rejection of second representation, the petitioner again
approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.848 of 2026 with the
following main prayer(s):-

(a) issue writ, order/orders or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order
dated
27.10.2025
vide
letter
No.
1531-32/जि0प्रो0का0/बन्दी-पैरोल/2025-26
passed
by
Respondent/District Magistrate Azamgarh contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition;

(b) to issue a writ, order/orders in the nature of mandamus commanding the state
authorities concerned to release the petitioner on parole/short-term bail whatsoever this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be deemed fit and proper in the ends of justice;

Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was elected on the post
of member of legislative Assembly in State of U.P. in the year 1991, 1993 and 2007 and he was
also State of Minister of Forest in State of Uttar Pradesh. He has further submitted that the
petitioner is an old person aged about 71 years and suffering from old age diseases. Earlier a
representation dated 20.05.2025 was moved on behalf of the petitioner for short term bail on
humanitarian ground before the authorities concerned, but the same was rejected on 04.06.2025.
The petitioner again moved a second representation dated 05.07.2025, which was also rejected vide
order dated 27.10.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the second representation was
rejected in cursory manner on the ground that the petitioner has criminal history; there are other
family members in the house of the petitioner; the date of marriage of petitioner's children has not
yet been fixed. He has further submitted that the short term bail/parole cannot be rejected on the
ground of criminal cases. The petitioner was a political person and due to political enmity, false
cases were registered against him and in most of the cases the petitioner has been acquitted and in 2
cases he has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C., hence the petitioner is entitled to get the
benefit of Rules framed by the State Authorities in the year 2007 for granting parole.

Argument of learned State Counsel

10. Per contra, Sri Bipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel opposed the prayer of learned
counsel for the petitioner while stating that the petitioner has criminal history; marriage of
petitioner's children has yet not been fixed, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to grant parole
and the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

Analysis

11. So far as the writ petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5870 of 2025, which
was preferred to decide the representation dated 20.05.2025, is concerned, it transpires from the
record that representation dated 20.05.2025, moved on behalf of petitioner, had already been
decided vide order dated 04.06.2025, hence the said writ petition seeking to decide representation
dated 20.05.2025 has no force.
3 All. Angad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
81

12. As regards writ petition bearing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 10859 of 2025 is concerned,
the main ground for filing the representation dated 20.05.2025 was the petitioner's ill health, and
the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan &others (2017) 15 SCC 55, especially para no.11, which
is being reproduced hereinunder.

"11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough. A parole can be defined
as the conditional release of prisoners, i.e., an early release of a prisoner, conditional on good
behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It can also be defined as
a form of conditional pardon by which the convict is released before the expiration of his term.
Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition that the parolee regularly reports
to a supervising officer for a specified period. Such a release of the prisoner on parole can also be
temporary on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it is to be treated as a mere suspension of the
sentence for the time being, keeping the quantum of sentence intact. Release on parole is designed
to afford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified exigencies. Such paroles are normally
granted in certain situations, some of which may be as follows:

(i) a member of the prisoner's family has died or is seriously ill, or the prisoner himself is
seriously ill; or

(ii) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,
brother, sister, sister's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or

(iii) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or
harvesting, or carrying on any other agricultural operation of his land or his father's undivided
land actually in possession of the prisoner; or

(iv) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause;

(v) parole can be granted only after a portion of the sentence is already served;

(vi) if conditions of parole are not abided by the parolee, he may be returned to serve his
sentence in prison, such conditions may be such as those of committing a new offence; and

(vii) Parole may also be granted on the basis of aspects related to the health of the
convict himself.

13. Learned counsel has also relied upon Rule 3 of U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of
Prisoners) Rules, 2007. The same is reproduced hereinunder.

"3. Power to suspend sentence.- (1) The Government may suspend the sentences of a
prisoner up to one month on following grounds :

(a) illness of prisoner's parents, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother or sister, or

(b) death of any one of the relative mentioned in sub-clause (a), or

(c) marriage of son, daughter, brother or sister;

(d) for sowing or harvesting of agricultural crops on his own land provided no other
alternative arrangement for the same is available;

(e) for the essential repair of his house, provided no other alternative arrangement for
the same is available.

(2) The Government may, in special circumstances, extend the period of suspension of
sentence referred to in sub-rules (1) for a period not exceeding one month."
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Learned State Counsel through his counter affidavit submitted the detailed health report of
the petitioner/convict; some parts of the detailed health report are being reproduced below.

"बन्दी को फालोअप/उपिार हेतु ददनांक-27.01.2025 को एस०िी०पी०िी०आई० लखनऊ भेिा
गया था िहां पर हृदय रोग पवशेषज्ञ द्वारा बन्दी का परीक्षण ककया गया एवं परीक्षणोपरान्त उपिार
परामसशथत करते हुए 06 माह बाद पुनः फालोअप हेतु बुलाया गया है (छायाप्रनत सलग्न)। ददनांक-27.01.2025
को बन्दी को यूरोलॉिी पवभाग में भी ददखलाया गया एवं यूरोलॉिी पवभाग के पवशेषज्ञ के परामशथ पर
Uroflowmetry Test, PVR, CECT Abd. with CT Urography, Urine RM, Urine Culture and
Sensitivity, KFT, Hb. and TLC िांि करायी गयी। CECT Abd. with CT Urography में पवशेषज्ञ द्वारा
F/S/O of Cystitis अंककत ककया गया है (छायाप्रनत सलग्न)। िांि ररपोटथ के साथ पुनः ददनांक-03.02. 2025
को यूरोलॉिी पवभाग के पवशेषज्ञ से फालोअप कराया गया। यूरोलॉिी पवभाग के पवशेषज्ञ द्वारा उपिार
परामसशथत करते हुए 06 सप्ताह बाद पुनः ददखलाये िाने का सलाह ददया गया है (छायाप्रनत सलग्न)। बन्दी
को पुनः SGPGIMS Lucknow भेिकर फालोअप कराये िाने हेतु ददनांक-05.06.2025 एवं ददनांक28.06.2025 को पुनः सलखते हुए पुसलस बल की मांग की गयी परन्तु पुसलस बल उपलब्ध नहीं होने के कारण
बन्दी को फालोअप हेतु SGPGIMS Lucknow नहीं भेिा िा सका है। ददनांक-13. 11.2025 को बन्दी को
कारागार चिककत्सालय में बुलाकर अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा स्वास्थ्य परीक्षण ककया गया, स्वास्थ्य परीक्षण में
बन्दी द्वारा कोई भी Fresh Complaint नहीं की गयी है। बन्दी को SGPGIMS Lucknow के पवशेषज्ञ द्वारा
परामसशथत उपिार को ननयसमत लेते रहने की सलाह देते हुए कारागार चिककत्सालय से पवशेषज्ञ द्वारा
परामसशथत उपिार उपलब्ध कराया िा रहा है एवं पुनः SGPGIMS Lucknow भेिकर फालोअप कराये िाने
हेतु संदसभथत ककया गया है। वतथमान में बन्दी का स्वास्थ्य जस्थर है।"

15. From a perusal of record, it is apparent that the petitioner/convict is in good health, hence,
we do not find any substance in the petitioner's claim. However, the jail authorities is directed to
take necessary steps considering the health of the petitioner.

16. As regards Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.848 of 2026, which has been filed challenging
the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh whereby the second
representation moved on behalf of petitioner dated 05.07.2025 was rejected, it transpires from the
record that learned State Counsel in his counter affidavit submitted that in the second
representation, parole was prayed mainly on two grounds: (i) to complete Agricultural work, (ii) to
fix the marriage of his son and daughter. However, it has been submitted by learned State Counsel
that there is no provision for parole based on "arranging the marriage of a son or daughter" under
the U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, Rule 3.

17. From a perusal of U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, especially
Rule 3, we find substance in the argument of learned State Counsel, as under Rule 3 of U.P.
(Suspension of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, there is no provision for such an arrangement.
3 All. Angad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
83

18. With regard to another contention of the counsel for the petitioner, that is, parole to
complete the Agricultural work. Although there is a provision for such an arrangement made under
U.P. (Suspension Of Sentence Of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, Rule 3(d), that says that "for sowing or
harvesting of agricultural crops on his own land, provided no other alternative arrangement for
the same is available"; but from perusal of said rule, it is also clear that if no other alternative
arrangement for the same is present, but in the present case the petitioner has three sons, namly,
Santosh Yadav (50 years), Alok Yadav (45 years), and Amar Yadav (30 years). Therefore, it can be
concluded that the petitioner has sufficient means for other alternative arrangements for agricultural
work. Hence, we do not find any substance in this argument.

19. It is pertinent here to mention the case of Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), wherein
the Apex court has clearly used a "tone of caution" while granting parole in such cases. The
relevant para is being reproduced below.

"20) Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for the grant of furlough or parole.
Obviously, society must isolate those who show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet
administrators ought to encourage those offenders who demonstrate a commitment to reconcile
with society and whose behaviour shows that aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Thus, the
parole program should be used as a tool to shape such adjustments.

21) To sum up, in introducing penal reforms, the State that runs the administration on
behalf of the society and for the benefit of the society at large cannot be unmindful of safeguarding
the legitimate rights of the citizens in regard to their security in the matters of life and liberty. It is
for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the authorities cannot be oblivious of the
obligation to the society to render it immune from those who are prone to criminal tendencies and
have proved their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty (by a Court)
of having perpetrated a criminal act. One of the discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of
imprisonment is to render the society immune from the criminal for a specified period. It is,
therefore, understandable that while meting out humane treatment to the convicts, care has to be
taken to ensure that kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to the society. Naturally
enough, the authorities would be anxious to ensure that the convict who is released on furlough
does not seize the opportunity to commit another crime when he is at large for the time-being under
the furlough leave granted to him by way of a measure of penal reform.

22) Another vital aspect that needs to be discussed is as to whether there can be any
presumption that a person who is convicted of serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto, treated
as a hardened criminal. Hardened criminal would be a person for whom it has become a habit or
way of life and such a person would necessarily tend to commit crimes again and again. Obviously,
if a person has committed a serious offence for which he is convicted, but at the same time it is also
found that it is the only crime he has committed, he cannot be categorised as a hardened criminal.
In his case consideration should be as to whether he is showing the signs to reform himself and
become a good citizen or there are circumstances which would indicate that he has a tendency to
commit the crime again or that he would be a threat to the society. Mere nature of the offence
committed by him should not be a factor to deny the parole outrightly. Wherever a person
convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole,
irrespective of the nature of offence for which he was sentenced. We may hasten to put a rider here,
viz. in those cases where a person has been convicted for committing a serious office, the
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competent authority, while examining such cases, can be well advised to have stricter standards in
mind while judging their cases on the parameters of god conduct, habitual offender or while
judging whether he could be considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and
tranquillity etc."

20. Furthermore, Rule 1(4)(c) of Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules,
2007 is relevant and is being reproduced hereinunder.

"(4) These rules shall apply to the prisoners convicted by the courts in Uttar Pradesh for
the offence to which the executive power of the State extends whether confined in Jail within the
State of Uttar Pradesh or outside the state but do not apply to, -

(a) x x x x x

(b) x x x x x

(c) The prisoners against whom any other criminal case is pending before any court."

21. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner/convict is having long list of criminal
cases and has been convicted in two of them, i.e. in Case Crime No.835 of 1995 under Sections
147,148,149,302 I.P.C, Police Station- Hajratganj, District- Lucknow, and in Case Crime No.511 of 2016,
under Sections 302/120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Sidhari, District Azamgarh, which are in very serious
nature. With regard to Rule 1(4)(c) of Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007, it
is pertinent to note here that nine criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, which has been
specifically explained in Annexure No.3 to the instant petition.

22. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the authorities have not taken into
account relevant considerations while rejecting the request for parole made on behalf of petitioner.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of parole to the petitioner,
particularly, at this stage.

23. Before parting with, I acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Saurabh Singh, Research
Associate, who assisted the Court relating to the present case.

24. These petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 84
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.3.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1985

Rameshwar Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent