Delhi High Court
Brijesh @ Guddu vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi on 16 December, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009
BRIJESH @ GUDDU ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Navin Chawla, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Amit Sharma, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 16.12.2009
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
grant of parole. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC
for committing murder of one Ram Naresh Yadav. His appeal against
conviction by the trial court having been dismissed by this Court vide
judgment dated 21.4.2009 in Crl.A.230/2007, he wants to file a Special
Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against that order and
wants parole for the purpose of engaging a lawyer of his choice and briefing
him in connection therewith. The request of the petitioner for grant of
parole was rejected vide order dated 20.7.2009 in view of the adverse Police
Report. No other reason was given for declining parole to the petitioner.
W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 page 1 of 4
Grant of parole being an executive function, it is for the Government
and not for the Court to consider such a request and take appropriate
decision on it. If, however, the order passed by the Government is based
upon irrelevant consideration or is otherwise not tenable in law, it is open to
the Court, in appropriate cases, to quash such an order and direct release of
the convict on parole.
The appeal filed by the petitioner having been rejected by a Division
Bench of this Court, Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is his last resort. Hence, his anxiety to engage a lawyer of his choice
and brief him adequately, so as to enable him to effectively present his case
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be disputed.
As regards the alleged adverse Police Report, which is the sole
ground for rejection of his request for grant of parole, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent states that as per the information received by
them from Oraiya in U.P., though the parents of the petitioner are residing
there, the petitioner was involved in a murder case in Delhi where he was
working in a factory. The case referred in the Report, received from Oraiya,
is the same case in which the petitioner was convicted by Delhi Court and
his appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.4. 2009.
W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 page 2 of 4
This is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is involved in
any other case or he is a desperate criminal who is likely to jump parole. It
has been verified by the respondent that the parents of the petitioner are
residing in Mohalla Govind Nagar, behind Dal Mill in District Oraiya of U.P.
and, therefore, they have a fixed place of residence.
A perusal of the judgment of the trial court would show that the
allegation against the petitioner is that he committed murder of deceased
Ram Naresh Yadav when he intervened in a quarrel of the petitioner with
another person.
Keeping in view the circumstances in which the murder is alleged to
have been committed by the petitioner, coupled with the fact that his
parents have a fixed place of residence, I see no reasonable apprehension of
the petitioner fleeing from justice and not returning back to the jail on
completion of parole. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the
petitioner is directed to be released on parole after one week for a period of
one month from the date of his release, subject to the conditions that (i) he
will not visit any other place except his native place in Oraiya, U.P., during
the period of parole; (ii) he shall mark his presence either in Police Station
Oraiya or in Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, in the morning of every
Sunday; (iii) he shall furnish a personal bond in the
W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 page 3 of 4
sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of
trial court; (iv) He shall comply with such other conditions as the
respondent may impose within one week from today in order to ensure that
he does not jump the parole.
W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 stands disposed of.
One copy of this order be sent to the petitioner through Jail
Superintendent and one copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel
for the respondent.
V.K. JAIN,J
DECEMBER 16, 2009
'sn'
W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 page 4 of 4
