Gurdeep Bagga vs Delhi Administration
1987 Latest Caselaw 150 Del

JUDGMENT

Aggarwal, J.

1. This is a petition by Gurdeep Bagga who is convicted to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder. The offence was committed on 8th October, 1980. The petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life by an Additional Sessions Judge. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by this Court on 11th October 1985.

2. The petitioner was ordered to be released on parole by the Delhi Administration on 21st December 1985 for a period of three weeks. The petitioner was released on 23rd December 1985 and his parole was to end on 14th January 1986.

3. On 20th January 1986 the petitioner filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court with the prayer for the extension of parole period for three months (Criminal Writ No. 15 of 1986.) The extension of the parole period was sought on the ground of the serious condition of the mother Smt. Ram Murti Bagga. Ground 18(A) of the petition reads as under :

"Because the order of the respondent granting three weeks parole as against three months sought for is arbitrary and whimsical. The petitioner's mother had been admitted to the hospital and certain sophisticated investigation have to be carried out. After the petitioner surrenders to the jail authorities on 24-1-86, no one would be there to look after the petitioner's mother."

It was stated that Smt. Bagga is suffering from coronary heart disease and she gets repeated attacks of angina pectoris.

4. On 23rd January 1986 this Court granted the petition and extended the parole for 8 weeks. The petitioner was required to surrender before the Superintendent of Jail, Tehar, on or before 20th March, 1986.

5. The petitioner filed Criminal Misc. 503 of 1986 for further extension of the parole. This was refused by this Court on 11th March, 1986.

5A. The petitioner against the aforesaid order went to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for special leave to appeal and on 20th March, 1986 a Bench of the Supreme Court extended the parole period for 8 weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner has been making repeated petitions to the Supreme Court for extension of the parole period and the same were granted to him from time to time and finally by an order dated 16th December 1986 the parole period was extended up to 15th February 1987. The petitioner against moved the Supreme Court for the extension of the parole period but his petition was rejected by a Bench of the Supreme Court on 16th February 1987. The order of the Supreme Court is as follows :

"Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. It is open to petitioner, if he is so advised, to move the High Court."

6. We are told by Shri Bhagat, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, that the extension of the parole period was sought on the ground now urged before us in the present petition.

7. After the aforesaid failure the petitioner on 17th February 1987 filed an application before the Delhi Administration for parole which we are informed is pending consideration. On 4th March, 1987 the present petition has been filed for grant of parole for a period of 12 weeks. The main ground stated in the petition for the grant of parole is that the mother of the petitioner Smt. Ram Murthi Bagga has to be admitted in the Appollo Hospital; Madras for by-pass surgery. There is a photostat copy of a letter written by Dr. M. R. Girinath to the petitioner stating that he could plan to come to Madras on the 15th March, 1987 for admission. The petition is accompanied by a certificate of Dr. J. M. Dua dated 8th February 1987 in which the doctor has certified that Smt. Ram Murthi Bagga has been suffering from moderate essential hypertension and that she has been on continuous medical therapy and has been advised to take rest for a period of two months with effect from middle of December, 1986 so as to recover sufficiently and then to undergo further evaluation and management of her illness. There is another certificate dated 20th October 1986 from the Appollo Hospital in which Smt. Ram Murthi Bagga was required to come on 21st December, 1986 for Angiogram and other tests.

8. We find that along with Criminal Writ No. 15/1986 certificates had been filed from Spring Meadows Hospital and of Dr. D. Raj Mahajan and along with the application for extension of parole period filed on 10th March, 1986 a medical certificate of Dr. S. P. Seth dated 28th February 1986 was filed. Dr. Seth had certified that Smt. Bagga was suffering from bronchIT is and pneumonia and was under his treatment from 1st February 1986 to 28th February 1986.

9. We may notice one more fact that during the pendency of the appeal also, the petition was twice admitted to interim bail, first time from 23rd August 1983 to 24th September 1983 and second time from 1st June 1984 to 7th August, 1984. The petitioner has been continuously on parole from 23rd December 1985 to 15th February 1987, that is, for a period of almost 14 months.

10. Shri Bhagat strenuously contended that the mother of the petitioner is to be admitted in the hospital at Madras for by-pass surgery on 15th March, 1987 and the presence of the petitioner by the side of his mother during the operation and during the post-operation period is very essential. We find from the jail records as well as the criminal writ petitions referred to by us in the earlier part of our order that the petitioner has been seeking parole right from 1984 on the ground of illness of his mother. The petitioner has been now continuously on parole from 23rd December 1985 to 15th February 1987 on the ground of the illness of his mother and that she had to be operated upon for heart by-pass surgery at the Appollo Hospital, Madras. There is a letter from the hospital at Madras asking Smt. Bagga to come on 21st December 1986 for admission for various tests. She had not gone to Madras at that time. We further find that each time a medical certificate of a different doctor is filed. Beyond the medical certificates no other medical document has been filed to show the history of the illness of Smt. Bagga. We find that the petitioner has two elder sisters. It should not be difficult for one of the sisters to arrange for the admission of Smt. Bagga in the hospital at Madras. We would give leave to the petitioner to move this Court in case his mother is admitted in the hospital at Madras and a date is fixed for her heart by-pass surgery. We think this must be one of the few cases where a life convict has been on parole continuously for a period of 14 months and that too shortly after his appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by this court. With this observation, the petition is dismissed.

11. Before we part with this case, we would like to say that there are a large number of convicts in the jail who have never been released on parole. We are receiving petitions almost every day from life convicts for parole in which they allege discrimination. We would recommend to the Delhi Administration to frame rules or guidelines for the release on parole of life convict or convicts undergoing long terms of imprisonment. We feel that life convicts who have undergone imprisonment of more that 4 or 5 years and have maintained good conduct should be given vacation (from jail) for a period of one month every year. This would have a great biological and psychological effect on the mind and behavior of a life convict and it may help in reducing the offences committed in the jail. This would also help a convict during that brief holiday to have a normal family life and maintain 'unity' of the family. We find that at present no consistent policy is being followed by the authority competent to release the convicts on parole and this has created emotional and psychological frustration in the minds of the convicts and this Court is now being flooded with petitions asking for parole. The vacation period can be increased to six weeks in cases where the convicts have undergone 7 years of the period of the sentence and they have maintained good conduct in the jail. We hope, the Delhi Administration shall give a serious consideration to our suggestion and frame suitable rules or guidelines in this regard. This will also remove the misgivings in the minds of some of the convicts that convicts who are influential and are 'men of means' easily manage parole whereas poor people go unheard of and they keep on rotting in the jail.

12. We direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Home Department, Delhi Administration, Delhi. A copy of the order be also sent to the Lt. Governor, Delhi.

13. Order accordingly.