Sunil Kumar vs The State (Govt Of Nct)
2009 Latest Caselaw 5308 Del

15.

% 18.12.2009

Present:    Mr. Rajinder Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner.
            Ms. Meera Bhatia, Standing Counsel for the State.

+ W.P. (Crl.) No. 1684/2009

      This is a petition for grant of parole in order to enable the

petitioner to file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.     The petitioner was convicted in a case registered under

Section    302/307/193/201/120B   of IPC and     was   convicted vide

judgment dated 16th October, 2007.     His appeal was dismissed vide

judgment dated 18th September, 2009 thereby maintaining his

conviction under Section 302/307 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof.

      The request of the parole for grant of parole has been rejected

solely on the ground that he had availed interim bail for the period

from 25th July, 2009 to 13th August, 2009.

      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 is 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.
       The petitioner having been convicted by the Trial Court and his

appeal having been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court, Special

Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is his last resort.

Therefore, his anxiety to engage the best lawyer he can and to brief

him adequately so as to enable him to present his case effectively

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be disputed. In fact, all the

co-convicts of the petitioner have already been granted parole by

different Courts.    There is absolutely no ground for denying the

similar treatment to the petitioner who is similarly situated. In any

case, grant of interim bail during pendency of the appeal cannot be a

valid ground for denying parole when the convict wants to file Special

Leave Petition against the order, whereby his conviction has been

maintained.

      For the reasons given above, impugned order dated 4 th

December, 2009 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 (i) he shall not

leave Delhi during the period of parole; (ii) he shall mark his presence

in Police Station Connaught Place in the morning of every      Sunday;

(iii) he   shall    furnish   a   personal   bond    in     the 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 decide to impose within one week from today in order

to ensure that he does not jump the parole.

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1684/2009 stands disposed of.

Dasti.

V.K.JAIN, J DECEMBER 18, 2009 bg