Delhi High Court
Ghan Shyam @ Javed vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 11 December, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
* 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
