The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by convict Angad Yadav seeking parole and short-term bail on medical and personal grounds. The Court held that the requests did not meet the legal requirements under applicable rules.
Background of the Case
Angad Yadav, currently lodged in jail, is serving a life sentence after being convicted under Section 302/34 IPC in a 1995 murder case. His conviction was upheld by the High Court in 2021 and later affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2022.
In 2025, Yadav moved a representation before state authorities seeking temporary release for two months, citing old age, illness, and humanitarian grounds. However, this request was rejected on June 4, 2025.
Read also:- Bank Accounts Frozen Without Notice? Bombay HC Quashes PF Recovery Order
Subsequently, he filed multiple writ petitions challenging the rejection and seeking relief from the Court. He later submitted another representation requesting parole to arrange the marriage of his children and manage agricultural work, which was also denied by authorities.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that Yadav is about 71 years old and suffering from age-related ailments. It was also submitted that parole can be granted on humanitarian grounds, including illness and family needs.
The petitioner further contended that rejection of parole based on criminal history alone was unjustified and relied on Supreme Court precedent to argue that parole serves as temporary relief in specific situations.
Read also:- Husband’s Conviction Upheld: Allahabad HC Relies on Injured Wife’s Testimony
The State opposed the plea, stating that the petitioner has a significant criminal history and multiple cases pending against him. It was also pointed out that the marriage of his children had not been fixed, and therefore, the grounds cited were insufficient.
The State further argued that the applicable rules do not allow parole for arranging a child’s marriage, and adequate family members were available to handle agricultural responsibilities.
The Division Bench carefully examined the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007.
On medical grounds, the Court noted that the petitioner’s health was stable. It observed,
“From a perusal of record, it is apparent that the petitioner… is in good health, hence we do not find any substance in the claim.”
Read also:- Allahabad HC Pulls Up Police Lapse, Recommends Faster Coordination with Govt Counsel
Regarding parole for marriage arrangements, the Bench found no legal provision supporting such a request under Rule 3 of the 2007 Rules.
On agricultural grounds, the Court pointed out that the petitioner has adult sons who can manage farming activities. Therefore, the requirement of “no alternative arrangement” was not satisfied.
The Bench also took note of the petitioner’s criminal background, including convictions in serious offences and several pending cases. It referred to Supreme Court guidance emphasizing caution in granting parole, particularly where public safety may be affected.
After considering all aspects, the Court held that the authorities had acted within the legal framework while rejecting the parole requests.
“The Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of parole,” the Bench concluded.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions filed by Angad Yadav were dismissed.
Case Title: Angad Yadav vs State of U.P. & Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 848 of 2026 (with connected matters)
Judge: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan & Justice Rajeev Bharti
Decision Date: March 19, 2026
