Delhi High Court Grants Parole Extension to 1984 Riots Convict Captain Bhagmal

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

In the case of Capt. Bhagmal vs State, The Delhi High Court agreed with Captain Bhagmal’s request for extension of parole. The Court gave Captain Bhagmal, accused of 1984 riots, a further period of three months on parole.

Brief Facts

On 31 October 1984, after the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, riots erupted on a great scale. They killed thousands of people in India. Rioters targeted and killed Sikhs in the rest of the world too. In India, Delhi was in the centre of the conflict. Between the 1st and 4th of November that year, 2,733 Sikhs were brutally murdered within four days. Rioters destroyed Sikh households. Rioters burnt down a gurudwara in the Raj Nagar district of south-west Delhi, killing five Sikhs in the same area.

Many of those who committed these heinous murders enjoyed government patronage. An indifferent law enforcement department helped them. The criminals escaped prosecution and punishment for over two decades. It took up to ten committees and commissions to investigate the conduct of some of them. Central Investigation Bureau (CBI) took charge of the case in 2005. Twenty-One years after the event.

The Judgement

The Court was of the view that the mass killings of Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere in November 1984 were in fact “crimes against humanity”. A Two-Judge Bench of S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel heard the appeals. The appeals were a collection of cases filed by the CBI, the survivors of the riots, and the convicts who opposed the acquittal of Kumar by a trial court in 2013.

In December 2018, the High Court convicted Sajjan Kumar, leader of Congress and former Member of Parliament (MP) for his role in the anti-Sikh uprisings of 1984. The Court also affirmed the conviction of Captain Bhagmal for offences committed under section 302 and 149 of the IPC. Bhagmal was later released on parole on 19 September 2019. The Court further extended the release period in March 2020 for two months.

Arguments Before the Court

Seeking the further extension of parole in Capt. Bhagmal vs State, the counsel for Bhagmal submitted that Bhagmal is currently 91 years old and his medical condition is very poor. He is most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. The Petitioner also suffers from renal complications and blood pressure. It is thus not advisable for him to go back to Tihar Jail.

He also contended that his health would deteriorate further if he surrendered to the authorities in jail. The counsel told the Court that Bhagmal never misuses the rights given to him. The State opposed the extension of parole.

Court’s Observation

Bearing in mind the petitioner’s age is more than 90, the petitioner’s parole stands extended for a period of three months under the same terms and conditions. The applicant must surrender to the relevant Prison Superintendent after the expiry of three months.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -