Delhi High Court
Chander Prakash vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 December, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1374/2010
Decided on 09.12.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
CHANDER PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.P.S.Charak, Advocate
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the State
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 to engage competent
counsel for filing a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, against
the judgment dated 15.04.2010 passed by the High Court, dismissing
Criminal Appeal No. 542/2008 and for maintaining social relations with his
family members. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life by the Learned ASJ in FIR No. 859/2004 registered at
PS Sangam Vihar, under Sections 302/201/34 IPC.
2. The Counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated
03.08.2010 passed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, rejecting the application of
the petitioner for grant of parole may be set aside. A perusal of the order of
rejection shows that parole has been denied on the grounds that the
petitioner was punished for committing jail offence on 06.11.2001,
07.11.2001, 30.05.2008 and hence the petitioner was not eligible to apply to
Govt. of NCT of Delhi for grant of parole in terms of Para No. 11.2 of Parole/
Furlough Guidelines 2010.
3. The nominal roll of the petitioner was called for. As per the said
nominal roll, against a quantum of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for two
years, the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of five years, nine
months and four days as on 23.09.2010 and earned remission for one month
and four days. His jail conduct for the past one year is stated to be
satisfactory.
4. A status report is filed by the SHO of the area, which shows that
verification of the application of the petitioner was carried out by the police
authorities. The residential address of the petitioner at Sangam Vihar, New
Delhi is found to be correct. At this address, petitioner's mother and his two
brothers reside. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was also
involved in Case FIR No. 362/04 P.S. Sangam Vihar u/s 325/34 IPC and
presently the case is pending trial.
5. As per the status report filed by the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New
Delhi, the petitioner had availed interim bails from 18.11.2009 to
02.12.2009 and from 06.02.2010 to 12.02.2010 granted by this court. It is
also stated in this report that the petitioner had committed jail offences on
various dates and punished accordingly and also that his application for
grant for parole was rejected in terms of para no. 11.2 of Parole / Furlough
Guidelines 2010 which state that conduct of the convict must have been
uniformly good.
6. The learned ASC for the State has opposed the grant of parole to
the petitioner on the ground that both the brothers of the petitioner are
financially capable to file the SLP and can arrange necessary finance for
litigation and also that all the brothers and sisters are married, so the
petitioner bears no family liabilities. He further submits that the family has
no control over him and therefore, there are possibilities that the petitioner
may jump the parole. Refuting these arguments, the counsel for the
petitioner states that the petitioner had availed interim bail on two occasions
in the year 2009 & 2010 as also mentioned in the nominal roll and that on
both occasions the petitioner had duly surrendered to the jail authorities and
not abused the indulgence granted to him.
7. The ground taken by the petitioner for grant of parole in the
present petition is filing of SLP against the judgment of the High Court in Crl.
Appeal No. 542/2008. The right of a citizen to effectively pursue his legal
remedy in the last court of justice in the country by filing a SLP is a valuable
right. The petitioner cannot be denied parole in such a case, particularly,
since his jail conduct in the past one year is stated to be satisfactory.
8. In this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed. The
petitioner is granted parole for a period of four weeks, subject to the
following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-
with surety of the like amount by his elder brother, Harish Chand, to
the satisfaction of the trial court.
(ii) The petitioner shall report to the local SHO of area, once a week on
every Sunday at 10:00 AM and shall not leave the National Capital
Territory of Delhi during the period of parole.
(iii) The petitioner shall furnish a telephone number to the Jail
Superintendent on which he can be contacted, if required. After his
release, he shall also inform his telephone number to the SHO of the
police station concerned.
(iv) Immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the petitioner shall
surrender himself before the Jail Superintendent.
(v) The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the SLP filed in the Supreme
Court to the Superintendent Jail at the time of surrendering.
(vi) The period of parole shall be counted from the day after the date when
the petitioner is released from jail.
9. The petition is disposed off.
DASTI.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the Jail Superintendent forthwith.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 9, 2010 JUDGE
pdg
