Delhi High Court
Vijender @ Biddi vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 December, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1330/2010
Decided on 10.12.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
VIJENDER @ BIDDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumer Sethi with Mr. Ajay Raghav,
Advocates for Petitioner
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ranjit Kapoor, ASC with Mr. Asim,
Advocate 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 for the purpose of filing
a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, against the judgment
dated 7.12.2009 passed by the High Court, dismissing Criminal Appeal No.
563/2008 and for maintaining social relations with his family members. The
petitioner has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the
Learned ASJ in FIR No. 986/2000 registered at PS Uttam Nagar, under
Sections 302/364/201/34 IPC.
2. The counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated
24.06.2010 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 to the petitioner on the grounds
that his jail conduct has been unsatisfactory in the past one year and that
the jail superintendent has not recommended his parole.
3. The nominal roll of the petitioner is placed on record. As per the
said nominal roll, against a quantum of sentence of life imprisonment and a
fine of `6,000/- in default thereof, simple imprisonment for seven months,
the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of nine years and eight
months as on 17.07.2010 and earned remission for two months and twenty
five days. In other words, as on date, the petitioner has undergone
conviction for just over 10 years.
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 report states that the father of the petitioner works in a
private factory, but is not in a position to file a SLP in the Supreme Court on
his behalf.
5. The learned ASC for the State has argued against the grant of
parole to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is involved in two other
criminal cases and further, he has been punished for his conduct in the last
one year while in jail. However, the counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner has previously been granted bail for two weeks, on the occasion of
his sister's marriage, and at that time he had surrendered within the
stipulated time and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, hence parole
may not be denied to the petitioner.
6. 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. 563/2008. 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, which cannot be withdrawn merely on the basis of the past conduct of
the petitioner, hence parole should not be denied.
7. 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.10,000/-
with one surety of the like amount, who shall be the father of the
petitioner, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(ii) The petitioner shall report to the SHO of the local 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. A copy of
the SLP shall also be placed on record in court.
(vi) The period of parole shall be counted from the day after the date when
the petitioner is released from jail.
8. The petition is disposed of.
DASTI.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 10, 2010 JUDGE
pm
