Mohd. Yasin @ Sahin vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 5233 Del

15.

% 15.12.2009

Present:   Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Navin Chawla, Adv. for
           the Petitioner.
           Ms. Meera Bhatia, Standing Counsel, for the State.
           SI Pratap Singh, PS Kashmiri Gate.

+ W.P. (Crl.) No. 1636/2009

      This is a petition for grant of parole for three months in order to

enable the petitioner to establish social ties and re-establish long

social ties with his family, including his children and mother.

2.    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 and pass appropriate orders on it.        If,

however, the order passed by the Government is found to be based on

extraneous reasons or on the grounds which are not relevant, or is

otherwise unjust or improper, it is open to the Court, in appropriate

cases to quash such an order and direct release on parole.

3.    A perusal of the Status Report filed by the respondent shows

that the petitioner is involved in as many as 29 cases of burglary,

attempt to murder, robbery, criminal intimidation and murder and is a

bad character of Police Station Chandni Mahal. The Status Report

further shows that the petitioner was granted interim bail in the year

1999 for four weeks, but he did not surrender back on expiry of the period of interim bail and was rearrested after three months. The

Status Report also shows that the family of the petitioner was not

found residing at House No. 2945, Kali Masjid Turakman Gate which

the petitioner claims to his local address though his brother Mohd.

Yusuf was found residing there in a rented accommodation. Thus, the

correct local address of the petitioner is also not ascertainable. Since

the petitioner had jumped interim bail and was arrested only after

three months of the expiry of the interim bail granted to him, the

apprehension of the respondent that if released on bail the petitioner

may not surrender back in jail, cannot be said to be unfounded.

Taking into consideration the involvement of the petitioner in a

number of cases, coupled with the fact that the exact place of

residence of his family is not ascertainable, the apprehension becomes

stronger.

4. The reasonable probability of the petitioner jumping parole

cannot be said to be an irrelevant or extraneous reason for

rejecting parole. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with

the order of the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for

grant of parole.

No ground is made out for interference with the impugned

order.

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1636/2009 is dismissed accordingly.

V.K.JAIN, J DECEMBER 15, 2009 bg