Delhi High Court
Mahavir Singh vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. on 19 November, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
24.
% 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. 1464/2009
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/2009/1226 dated 30th September, 2009 for grant
of parole. The request of the petitioner for grant of parole was
rejected vide order dated 17th November, 2009 on the ground that
he has already availed 15 days parole under the order of this
Court during July-August, 2009.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that, in fact, no
parole was granted to the petitioner by this Court in July-August,
2009 and only an interim bail for 15 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 July-
August, 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 A-1, A-29, Gali No. 9, Chankiya Place,
Opposite C-1, Janak Puri, New Delhi. The petitioner was a Head
Constable 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
Janak Puri 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. 1464/2009 stands disposed of.
Dasti.
V.K.JAIN, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2009
bg
