Delhi High Court
Rattan Pal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 August, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 451/2010
Decided on 25.08.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
RATTAN PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition through jail, praying
inter alia for quashing of the order dated 28.01.2010 by which, his
application for grant of parole was rejected, and seeking his release for a
period of three months on parole to re-establish social ties with his family
and make financial arrangements for them. While passing the impugned
order, the respondent/State rejected the application of the petitioner for
grant of parole on the ground that there was an adverse police report stating
that the family of the victim and the people in the vicinity were shocked to
hear that the petitioner was trying to come out of jail on parole and that the
family of the victim was still in mental shock and the victim was trying to
cope with frustration and stigma.
2. Notice was issued on the present petition on 23.03.2010
whereafter, a status report dated 13.07.2010 was filed by the
respondent/State. In the status report, it was stated that enquiry through
SHO, PS Farsh Bazar was conducted and the address of the petitioner was
got verified; that the father of the petitioner was working as a rickshaw
puller and the financial condition of the family of the petitioner was very
poor. Rest of the averments were a reiteration of the grounds given in the
impugned order dated 28.01.2010, for rejecting the request of the petitioner
for grant of parole. Alongwith the status report, a communication from the
Delhi Police is placed on the record wherein, it was noted that the family of
the petitioner had sold their house situated in Shahdara and had shifted to
District Ghaziabad, UP.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled
to grant of parole at least for a period of 30 days to enable him to restore
his family ties and to try and arrange some funds and his family members
who are on the verge of starvation.
4. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and perused
the record. The petitioner is convicted of the offence under Section
376(2)(f)/323 IPC. The quantum of sentence imposed on him is 10 years'
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default of which, simple
imprisonment of two years. As per the nominal roll received from Dy.
Superintendent, Central Jail No.2, Tihar, as on 20.07.2010, the petitioner
had undergone a period of conviction of 6 years, 2 months and 22 days, and
earned remission for a period of 1 year and 9 months, leaving an unexpired
period of sentence of 2 years and 8 days. His conduct in the past one year
in jail is found to be satisfactory. There are no other pending cases against
the petitioner, apart from the present one. The petitioner has stated that his
family comprises of aged parents, two younger sisters and one younger
brother with whom, he wants to re-establish social ties and arrange finances
as they are on the verge of starvation. The financial condition of the family
of the petitioner has been confirmed by the respondent to be precarious.
5. Grant of parole is an executive function and ordinarily, it is for
the Government and not for the Court to consider such a request and take a
decision thereon. However, the orders passed by the Government can
certainly be scrutinized to examine, if they are based on extraneous and/or
irrelevant consideration. The ground given by the respondent for rejecting
the application for parole sought by the petitioner that the victim and people
in the vicinity were shocked to hear that he was trying to come out of jail on
parole and that the victim is still in mental shock, has to be balanced with
the right of the petitioner for grant of parole for genuine and valid reasons.
As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Lata vs. M.L.
Wadhawan, reported as (1987) 3 SCC 347 (7), "Release on parole is a
wing of reformative process and is expected to provide opportunity to the
prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen."
6. In Inder Singh Vs. State A.I.R.1978 SC 1091, the Supreme
Court had devised another humanising strategy, viz, a guarded parole
release every year at least for 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, cabined and confined within the
four walls of the prison. In the case of Inder Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court had directed that:
"12. .......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 further buildup. After
every period of one year, they should be enlarged on parole for
two months......."
7. In the present case, considering the fact that as per the report
of the respondent itself, the family of the petitioner is no longer residing in
Shahdara and has shifted to District Ghaziabad, UP, the question of the
petitioner being in the immediate vicinity of the family of the victim does not
arise. Admittedly, the petitioner has not come out on parole even once
during all the period of his incarceration. Hence, there appears no serious
apprehension of breach of law and order in case, the petitioner is granted
parole for one month. Nor has the respondent expressed any threat of
commission of some other offence by the petitioner, if he is permitted to
come out on parole.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
case, there is no material on record to justify any apprehension that the
petitioner, upon being granted parole, shall not return back to jail
particularly, when he has undergone a major part of the conviction imposed
on him. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 28.01.2010 is
set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period
of one month from the date of his release, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court. While one surety shall be local, the second surety may be from
Ghaziabad, where the family of the petitioner is now residing.
(ii) The petitioner shall mark his presence in Police Station: Shahdara at
10 AM on every Sunday and during the period of parole, he shall not
visit Shahdara for any purpose except for marking his presence in
Police Station: Shahdara.
(iii) The petitioner shall keep away from the area around the residence of
the victim and her family members.
9. The petition is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
AUGUST 25, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
