Delhi High Court
Sri Om vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi on 16 September, 2009
Author: G. S. Sistani
18.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1138/2009
SRI OM ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sharath Sampath and Mr. Navin
Chawla, Advs.
versus
STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
ORDER
% 16.09.2009
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, "Cr.P.C."), petitioner
seeks grant of parole in case FIR No.156/2002 registered under
Sections 363/364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as, "IPC"), Police Station Seelam Pur, on the ground that
he wishes to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of
India and to renew his social ties.
2. Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned counsel for the State accepts
notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
presently confined in Central Jail No.2, Tihar, New Delhi, and has
completed approximately five years and seven months out of the
sentence of life imprisonment that was imposed upon him. Learned
counsel also submits that the petitioner had filed an application to the
Government of NCT of Delhi for grant of parole for a period of 3
months on the ground that the petitioner had to engage a Counsel for
filing an S.L.P. before the Supreme of India, and also for arranging the
necessary finance for the same, however, the same was not
responded to by the Government of NCT. Learned counsel submits
that the conduct of the petitioner throughout his detention in prison
has been good and nothing adverse has ever been recorded against
his character.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance upon the
ruling of Supreme Court of India in Inder Singh Vs. State of Delhi,
reported at AIR 1978 SC 1091 wherein their Lordships held that:
"if the behavior of these two prisoners shows
responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though
cautious, parole will be allowed to them so that their
family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not
build up may not further build up, after every period of
one year, they should be enlarged on parole for a period
of two months..."
"..... a guarded parole release every year at least a
month, punctuating the total prison term, for maintaining
his family ties. A prisoner cannot maintain his family ties
by living in a small world of his own cribbed, cabinated
and confined within the four walls of the prison." Further
the conduct of the petitioner has been exemplary through
out his period of prison and nothing adverse has been
recorded against him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Apt herein, it would
be to reproduce the observations of the Apex Court on the point of
parole. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Mohinder Singh,
reported at (2000) 3 SCC 394 it was observed as under:
"15. In Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan1 this Court was
considering the nature and scope of parole in a case of
preventive detention. It said: (SCC p. 354, para 8)
„8. ..... The grant of parole is essentially an executive
function and instances of release of detenus on parole
were literally unknown until this Court and some of the
High Courts in India in recent years made orders of
release on parole on humanitarian considerations.
Historically „parole‟ is a concept known to military law
and denotes release of a prisoner of war on promise to
return. Parole has become an integral part of the
English and American systems of criminal justice
intertwined with the evolution of changing attitudes of
the society towards crime and criminals. As a
consequence of the introduction of parole into the
penal system, all fixed-term sentences of
imprisonment of above 18 months are subject to
release on licence, that is, parole after a third of the
period of sentence has been served. In those
countries, parole is taken as an act of grace and not as
a matter of right and the convict prisoner may be
released on condition that he abides by the promise. It
is a provisional release from confinement but is
deemed to be a part of the imprisonment. Release on
parole is a wing of the reformative process and is
expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to
transform himself into a useful citizen. Parole is thus a
grant of partial liberty or lessening of restrictions to a
convict prisoner, but release on parole does not
change the status of the prisoner. Rules are framed
providing supervision by parole authorities of the
convicts released on parole and in case of failure to
perform the promise, the convict released on parole is
directed to surrender to custody. ............."
6. Latest nominal roll of the petitioner has been received and as on
30.07.2009, the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period
of approximately five years, seven months and twenty six days.
(1987) 3 SCC 347 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 506
Further, the remission earned by the petitioner is eleven months and
nine days. Thus, as on today, the petitioner has suffered
approximately five years and nine months of incarceration. The
conduct of the petitioner all this while has been recorded to be
satisfactory and no other case is pending against him. In view of the
above and the fact that the petitioner seeks to file a Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court of India and for which purpose he
seeks to engage a counsel and also arrange the necessary finances
for the same; petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and
conditions imposed upon him by this Court and further undertakes to
surrender before the jail authorities after expiry of the period of
parole; and keeping in mind that the purpose of parole is to provide a
chance to the convict to reform himself and gel with the mainstream
society, petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of
six weeks from the date of his release, on his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial court. Petitioner is directed to surrender
after completion of the period of parole granted.
7. Petition stands disposed of.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
September 16, 2009
'msr'
