The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., on behalf of the petitioner for the grant of parole for a period of 30 days. The Court observed that the said jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly by the Court, wherein the facts and circumstances so deserve for passing of directions despite the specific provisions in the relevant Prison Rules.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 19.10.2023 in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, wherein he was sentenced to pay Rs. 32 lacs as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of 03 months. Further, he was directed to pay Rs. 8 lacs as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. within 30 days and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months. It is the case of the petitioner that he moved an application for releasing him on parole for a period of 30 days for attending the funeral ceremony of his mother on 25.01.2024 before the Court of learned MM, but the same was not taken on record, compelling him to file the present writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone about 2.5 months out of 3 months of sentence and may be released on parole for attending the customary ceremonies on account of the death of his mother.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that as per the status report received by him, the petitioner has undergone 2 months and 19 days of the sentence in jail as of 08.02.2024 and the conduct of the convict is satisfactory. However, no information has been received regarding the filing or pendency of any application preferred by the petitioner before the Competent Authority. He contended that the application, if any filed, can be considered in accordance with law.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the bar of judicial intervention to direct temporary release of a detenu would not affect the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the temporary release of the detenu, where request of the detenu to be released on parole for a specified reason and/or for a specified period, has been, in the opinion of the Court, unjustifiably refused or where in the interest of justice such an order of temporary release is required to be made. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly by the Court, wherein the facts and circumstances so deserve for passing of directions despite the specific provisions in the relevant Prison Rules.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the petitioner is admitted to parole for one week, w.e.f. the date of his release on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety.
Case Title: Hansraj Surana v State of NCT of Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 422/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. J. B. Choudhary
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Anand V. Khatri
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
