The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ved Yadav vs State of NCT of Delhi consisting of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma opined that the right of a convict to file an SLP against the dismissal of his criminal appeal by a High Court is essential and the same could not be denied on the ground that free legal aid was available in the jail and SLP could be filed from the jail itself. Since the only hope for the Petitioner was from the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding his conviction, he must be provided with an opportunity to pursue his legal remedy by filing an SLP through the counsel of his choice.
Brief Facts:
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requesting a writ of certiorari to quash the Respondent’s order rejecting the Petitioner's parole application and mandamus to release the Petitioner on parole for two months.
Brief Background:
The Petitioner was convicted u/s 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. His appeal against conviction was denied by this Court. The Petitioner has served roughly 8 years and 10 months in jail.
The Petitioner has requested parole for two months to hire an Attorney and gather funds to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and re-establish social and family links after a long incarceration.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the Petitioner had been freed on interim bail twice by this Court, had never misused this liberty, had submitted to the Competent Authority without delay, and had received no bad report from the Police or competent Authority.
Further, the right of a convict to submit SLP against criminal appeal dismissal is constitutional and cannot be refused on erroneous grounds.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended that the Petitioner can submit SLP from jail where free legal aid is accessible.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody for 8 years and 10 months. Further, the conduct of the Petitioner has been satisfactory.
The Bench opined that the right of a convict to file an SLP against the dismissal of his criminal appeal by a High Court is essential and the same could not be denied on the ground that free legal aid was available in the jail and SLP could be filed from the jail itself. Since the only hope for the Petitioner was from the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding his conviction, he must be provided with an opportunity to pursue his legal remedy by filing an SLP through the counsel of his choice.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the High Court allowed the petition, and the Petitioner was granted parole for two months subject to some conditions.
Case Title: Ved Yadav vs State of NCT of Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case No: W.P. (CRL.)179/2023
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Archit Upadhayay (DHCLSC) with Ms. Charu Sharma
Advocates for Respondent: Adv. Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhyay, ASC for State
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
