Delhi High Court
Mohd. Ahmad vs State on 8 December, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1357/2010
Decided on 08.12.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
MOHD. AHMAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Charu Verma, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshay Bipin, ASC with
Inspector Suresh Dabas, PS Seema Puri
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 writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying
inter alia for grant of parole for a period of 3 months for the purpose of
engaging a counsel for filing an SLP before the Supreme Court of India,
against the judgment dated 19.01.2010 passed by the High Court,
dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 732/2004 and for maintaining social ties with
his family members and society.
2. Vide order dated 17.6.2010, the Government of NCT of Delhi
rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of parole on the ground of
an adverse report expressing an apprehension of breach of law and order
and a possibility of jumping of bail by the petitioner, in view of the fact that
his family members had no control over him.
3. As per the nominal roll of the petitioner, against a quantum of
sentence of RI for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default RI for a period of six
months in respect of offence, under Sections 302/201 IPC subject matter of
FIR No.2/91 , as on 10.8.2010, the petitioner had undergone sentence for a
period of nine years, seven months and twenty nine days.
4. Vide order dated 9.9.2010, notice was issued on the petition and
a status report was called for, from the State.
5. On 29.10.2010, the status report filed by the Government of
NCT of Delhi supported the rejection order dated 17.6.2010. However, the
said status report made no mention of the claim of the petitioner that he is
married and has a wife and two children. As a result, a fresh status report
was called for. Counsel for the petitioner was directed to resort to video
conferencing with the petitioner who is in jail. Counsel for the petitioner
states that she has obtained instructions from her client to the effect that his
residential address of Badaun, UP as furnished by him, is correct.
6. Learned ASC for the State hands over a fresh status report
which states that upon the death of the petitioner's mother, his father got
remarried and abandoned the petitioner who he was 17 years old at that
time. The petitioner was brought up by his aunt and as a result, his family
members have no control over him. It is further stated that the petitioner
had stated that he is a married man, a father of two children and fully
responsible for his aged parents, his wife and two minor children. However,
during the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner used to live with a
widow, namely, Nadra at Faridpur Bareily, UP. The said lady also has four
children. The petitioner brought Nadra and her children to his own home in
Badaun. The family members of the petitioner are unaware of the address
of the aforesaid lady. The petitioner has seven brothers who are capable of
taking care of his aged parents. The address given by the petitioner was
verified and it was found that there is no lady by the name of Nadra residing
at the address given by the petitioner. The statement of his family members
was also recorded, who confirmed the aforesaid position. It is further noted
in the status report that as per the record of PS Kotwali Badaun, the
petitioner is involved in three criminal cases, namely, FIR No.664/2000
under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC, FIR No.665/2000 under Sections 25
of Arms Act and FIR No.665/2000 under NDPS Act.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid status report which again
confirms the fact that the family members of the petitioner have no control
over him and the fact that on verification of the residential address furnished
by the petitioner, it was found that petitioner did not reside at the aforesaid
address, this court is not inclined to interfere in the rejection order dated
17.6.2010, by which the request of the petitioner for grant of parole was
rejected.
8. The present petition is therefore dismissed.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 08, 2010 JUDGE
mk
