* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1509/2009
GHAN SHYAM @ JAVED ..... Petitioner
Through:Mr. Rajeev Sirohi, Advocate
versus
STATE GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through:Mr. Roshan Kumar, Advocate for Ms.
Meera Bhatia, Standing Counsel for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 11.12.2009
1. This is a petition for grant of parole. The petitioner was arrested in a case under section 302/307/353/186/332/411/471/34 of IPC as well as in a case under section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine amounting to a total of Rs. 9,000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 1st September, 2009, he wants to file an Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and wants parole for the purpose of engaging a lawyer of his choice.
2. The petitioner applied to the respondent for grant of parole. His request had been rejected on the following two grounds: i.) The Jail conduct of the convict is unsatisfactory. ii.) The family of the convict has no control over his activities. There is apprehension of jumping the parole by the convict.
3. Since one of the ground for rejection of parole was the alleged unsatisfactory jail conduct of the petitioner, a report was called from the Jail Superintendent. It has been reported by him that the petitioner was punished on 05.03.2009 for beating a under trial prisoner Sanjay without any reason. He was again punished on 24.08.2009 and 10.10.2008 for refusing to present himself for court production in time and for loitering about near Mulakat Jangla aimlessly and insulting and threatening of the jail official when asked as to why he was moving about on that place.
4. A perusal of the judgment dated 1st September, 2009, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, would show that on 7th January, 2001 some police officials noticed a Maruti car near Majnu Ka Tila in suspicion circumstances. Two persons were sitting in the car. As soon as the police officials reached near the car, its occupants started running. They were chased and SI Vinod managed to apprehend the petitioner Ghanshyam whereas the person Kishore Kumar was apprehended by other police official. On being exhorted by Kishore Kumar, the petitioner fired a shot on SI Vinod who fell down on the ground and died. After shooting on SI Vinod the petitioner ran away from the spot.
5. The grant of parole being an executive function, it is for the Government and not for the court to consider the request made by a convict for grant of parole. However, if the parole is rejected by the Government on irrelevant or extraneous consideration or the order whereby the parole is rejected is such which could not have been passed by any prudent person acting on the basis of available material, it is open to the court, in appropriate cases, to set aside such an order and direct release of the convict on parole.
6. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, their apprehension is that the petitioner, considering his past record and conduct in jail, may jump to parole, instead of filing SLP in Supreme Court. The apprehension of the respondent, to my mind is justified. The probability of the convict jumping the parole as also his conduct in the jail, cannot be said to be irrelevant considerations, in considering an application for grant of parole. Keeping in view the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, who had no hesitation in shooting down a police official and then running away from the spot, coupled with his unruly conduct in the jail, there is a strong probability of the petitioner jumping the parole and not returning to the prison in case he is released on parole.
7. I, therefore, do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the order whereby the parole has been denied to the petitioner. However, in order to ensure that the petitioner gets the services of a competent lawyer and is not prejudicially affected on account of refusal of parole to him, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is requested to provide the services of a competent counsel to the petitioner for the purpose of filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The counsel to be provided to him by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee will be given the facility of interviewing the petitioner in jail and/or by way of video conferencing, whatever way the counsel may desire and all the expenses unless borne by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be borne by the respondent.
The WP(Crl.) 1509/2009 stands disposed of.
One copy of this order be sent to the petitioner through Jail Superintendent for information. One copy be also given dasti by the Registry to the brother of the petitioner.
V.K. JAIN,J DECEMBER 11, 2009 RS