No Parole For 'Arranging' Children's Marriage Or If Other Criminal Cases Pending: Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Ex-MLA

The Allahabad High Court has held that a convicted prisoner can't be granted parole merely to arrange or fix the marriage of their children under the Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007. While denying relief to Ex-MLA Angad Yadav, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti also noted that, as per Rule 1(4)(c) of the 2007 Rules, a prisoner with pending criminal cases is statutorily barred from availing parole benefits.Yadav, a 71-year-old former State Minister of Forests in Uttar Pradesh, is currently serving life imprisonment in connection with a 1995 murder case. His appeals against the conviction have already been dismissed by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.Essentially, the petitioner made two separate parole representations before the state government. In his first plea, he sought a short-term release on humanitarian and medical grounds. This plea was rejected, noting that Rule 3 of the 2007 Rules does not provide for granting parole for a prisoner's own medical treatment.His second representation sought a 60-day parole to finalise the marriages of his son and daughter and to manage agricultural work. This plea was also rejected by the state government by on the ground that the marriages were not pre-fixed, and no dates were scheduled. Hence, it was reasoned that parole can't be granted to the convict who merely wanted to search for prospective matches.Challenging the rejection of both the representations, the petitioner moved the HC. It was primarily argued that the second representation was rejected in a cursory manner on the grounds that the petitioner has a criminal history.At the outset, the Court concurred with the state government's decision to deny him parole on health grounds, noting that the petitioner/convict is in good health. However, the bench directed the jail authorities to take the necessary steps considering the petitioner's health.Now, regarding the rejection of the second representation, the bench noted that under Rule 3 of the 2007 Rules, there is absolutely no provision for granting parole to arrange the marriage of a son or daughter. Regarding the request for agricultural work, the Court analyzed Rule 3(d) of the 2007 Rules. It noted that while this rule permits parole for sowing or harvesting crops on the prisoner's own land, but it was subject to condition that no other alternative arrangement is available. The bench pointed out that the petitioner has three adult sons aged 50, 45 and 30 years. Consequently, the Court logically deduced that the petitioner has sufficient alternative arrangements for agricultural work and hence, the Court found the rejection of his second plea to be justified.Importantly, the bench also referred to the absolute statutory bar under Rule 1(4)(c) of the 2007 Rules, which categorically states that the suspension provisions do not apply to prisoners against whom any other criminal case is pending before any court. The bench highlighted that the petitioner has a long list of criminal cases, with nine cases currently pending against him, apart from his conviction in two separate murder cases of a very serious nature.Against this backdrop, the Bench concluded that 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. Finding that it is not a fit case for the grant of parole to the petitioner, particularly, at this stage, the bench rejected his pleas.Case title - Angad Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 126Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 126Click Here To Read/Download Order

No Parole For 'Arranging' Children's Marriage Or If Other Criminal Cases Pending: Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Ex-MLA

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags