Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar Sharma vs State on 25 August, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(Crl) No. 941/2010
Decided on 25.08.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kalia and Ms.Sumita Kapil,
Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC
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 present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for quashing of the order dated 1.6.2010 passed by the Deputy Secretary:
Home(General), Government of NCT of Delhi, rejecting the request of the
petitioner for parole for a period of three months on the ground of adverse
police report and possibility of committing similar type of offence.
2. The nominal roll dated 17.7.2010 forwarded by the Deputy
Superintendent, Central Jail shows that the petitioner has been awarded
death sentence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and the period of sentence
undergone by him as on 12.7.2010, is 14 years 11 months and 15 days.
3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the need for the petitioner
to seek parole has arisen on account of his mother's deteriorating health for
which she is required to undergo certain procedures in the hospital. He
submits that on 29.12.2009, the mother of the petitioner suffered a massive
heart attack and was admitted in the Cardiology Unit of the Jaipur Golden
Hospital. Her medical certificates were placed on record, along with
Crl.Misc.No.8270/2010. In view of the aforesaid submissions, a status
report was directed to be filed by the State. In the status report dated
5.7.2010 filed by the SHO, Connaught Place, it is stated that enquiries were
made from Dr.Pramod Kumar, Chairman & HOD Cardiology who confirmed
that the mother of the petitioner aged 68 years, suffered a severe heart
attack on 29.12.2009 and was admitted in the Cardiology Unit of the Jaipur
Golden Hospital and is required to undergo Echo Test and Angiography in the
hospital as early as possible.
4. Counsel for the petitioner states today, on instructions from his
client, that the petitioner may be granted permission to try and arrange
funds for the tests and the surgery, if any, recommended for his mother, by
making telephonic calls from the Central Jail, to his relatives and friends,
and to phone Dr. Pramod Kumar, under whose treatment his mother is
stated to be at the Jaipur Golden Hospital, to know her current health status.
He further seeks permission to visit his mother in custody at her residence at
Pitam Pura, New Delhi, a week prior to the angiography recommended for
her.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel
for the petitioner, the Superintendent, Central Jail is directed to permit the
petitioner to make telephone calls from within the Tihar Jail to his
relatives/friends whose names and telephone numbers shall be furnished by
the petitioner within one week. The list shall not exceed 10 in number.
The said calls shall be made by the petitioner well within the hearing of the
jail authorities. The petitioner shall also be permitted to telephonically
contact Dr. Pramod Kumar, under whose treatment his mother is stated to
be at Jaipur Golden Hospital, within the hearing of the jail authorities.
Finally, the petitioner is permitted to visit his mother at her residence, in
custody one week prior to the date of her angiography, for one day starting
at 10AM and to report back to Jail by 5PM. The date of the surgery shall be
communicated in writing to the jail authorities one week in advance.
6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
is very keen to donate blood for the surgery that his mother may have to
undergo and the jail authorities may be directed to collect a unit of blood
from the petitioner, for it to be forwarded to the hospital, if so required. In
case any intimation is received by the jail authorities from the hospital for
arranging blood for the surgery, if any, required to be undertaken by the
mother of the petitioner, he be permitted to visit the Jail Hospital for
donating a unit of blood which shall in turn be dispatched to the hospital in
question.
7. Now coming to the conduct of the police officers in the present
case, perusal of the file reflects that after notice was issued in the present
petition on 11.6.2010, a status report was filed on behalf of the State, under
an index dated 5.7.2010. The said status report enclosed a photocopy of the
letter dated 5.4.2010 addressed by the Additional Commissioner of Police,
New Delhi District to the Superintendent, Central Jail verifying the contents
of the application for parole made by the petitioner. At Sl.No.5 of the letter,
it was stated by the ACP/PG as below:
"5: There is no possibility of jumping out the parole by him."
8. Apart from the aforesaid report, a decision of the Deputy
Secretary: Home(General), Government of NCT of Delhi communicated, vide
letter dated 1.6.2010, to the Superintendent, Central Jail rejecting the
request of the petitioner for parole was also placed on record. On perusing
the aforesaid status report submitted by the Delhi Police, in the face of a
negative report of the GNCT of Delhi, the court had expressed its surprise
and directed the counsel for the State to inform the court as to the basis on
which the aforesaid observation was made by the A.C.P. as recorded at
Sl.No.5 of the reply dated 5.4.2010. Learned ASC for the State states on
instructions from the Additional Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District
that the aforesaid reply dated 5.4.2010 though signed for and on his behalf,
was in fact never shown to him. He has also produced a noting file of the
department in this regard.
9. Considering the gravity of the offence for which the petitioner
has been awarded death sentence, it is quite apparent that all is not well
within the Department and the letter dated 5.4.2010 has been tailor made.
It is amazing that a report of the kind as submitted for and on behalf of the
Additional Commissioner of Police is stated to have been put up at the level
of the S.I., duly endorsed by the S.H.O. and released by the office of the
Additional Commissioner of Police to finally reach the Court, without any
vetting of any kind, at any level. In the above circumstances, it is deemed
appropriate to direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to hold a
departmental enquiry, fix responsibility, and punish the guilty officers for
trying to mislead the court, as also the State, by submitting such a status
report in court. An action taken report shall be placed on record within six
weeks from today.
10. The petition is disposed of.
11. List for report on 12.11.2010.
DASTI to the counsels for the parties.
(HIMA KOHLI)
AUGUST 25, 2010 JUDGE
mk
