Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. & Anr. on 19 November, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
23.
% 19.11.2009
Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ranjit Kapoor, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Akshay Bipin and Mr. S.K. Saxena, Advs. for CBI.
+ W.P. (Crl.) No. 1440/2009
This is a petition for grant of parole for three months. The
petitioner was convicted under Section 302/307/193/201/120B of
IPC vide judgment dated 16th October, 2007. The appeal filed by
him against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by this
Court vide judgment dated 18th September, 2009. The petitioner
wishes to challenge the order whereby his appeal was dismissed,
by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, and therefore, wants parole to make arrangement to
instruct the lawyer and file the Special Leave Petition after
raising the requisite resources for this purpose.
2. The petitioner applied to the respondent vide despatch No.
F.1/SC-J-1/ASW/2009/1218 dated 30th September, 2009 for grant
of parole. The request of the petitioner for grant of parole was
rejected vide order dated 16th November, 2009 on the ground
that he has already availed 35 days interim bail in the current
year i.e. w.e.f. 16th June, 2009 to 21st July, 2009.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that, in fact, no
parole was granted to the petitioner by this Court in June-July,
2009 and only an interim bail for 35 days was granted to him
during the pendency of the appeal. In fact, since his appeal has
been dismissed only on 18th September, 2009, there could have
been no question of any parole being granted to him in June-July,
2009.
4. This is not the function of the Court to grant parole. It is for
the Government to consider the request made by a convict for
grant of parole and take appropriate decision thereon. If
however, parole is refused on the grounds which are not relevant
or the order refusing parole is based on extraneous consideration
or is otherwise manifestly unjust and improper, it is open to the
High Court, in appropriate proceedings, to grant parole to the
convict.
5. Since the request of the respondent for grant of parole has
been rejected on a factually wrong premise, presumably
interpreting the interim bail as parole, the order passed by the
respondent suffers from the vice of improper application of mind
and cannot be sustained. The request for grant of parole in order
to enable the petitioner to file a Special Leave Petition is genuine
and well-founded. The Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is the last resort for the petitioner, his appeal
having already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court,
he would naturally be anxious to engage a competent lawyer and
do his best to defend himself. If on parole, he would be able to
engage a lawyer of his choice and to suitably brief him so that his
case can be adequately presented before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
6. It has been verified by the respondent that the family of the
petitioner is residing at H. No.106-A, DDA Flats, Pocket-IV,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi. The petitioner was an
Inspector in Delhi Police. It is rather unlikely that he will not
come back to undergo the remaining sentence imposed upon him
in case he is released on parole.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it
is directed that the petitioner be released on parole, after one
week, for a period of one month, in order to enable him to file
Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, subject
to following conditions; (i) he shall furnish a surety bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Trial Court; (ii) he shall not leave
Delhi for any reason whatsoever; (iii) he shall mark his presence
in Mayur Vihar Police Station on every Monday and Thursday at
9.00 a.m.; (iv) he shall abide by such other conditions as
respondent may deem appropriate to impose within one week
from today.
WP (Crl.) No. 1440/2009 stands disposed of.
Dasti.
V.K.JAIN, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2009
bg
