Sachin Kumar vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 281 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                        W.P.(Crl.) No.1772/2009


                               Date or Order: 19th January 2010


#      SACHIN KUMAR                             ..... Petitioner
!                              Through:     Ms.Purnima Sethi, Adv.

                         versus

$      STATE                                    ..... Respondent
^                              Through:     Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP


*      CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

       1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers
               may be allowed to see the judgment?           No

       2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?        No

       3.      Whether the judgment should be
               reported in the Digest?                       No


: V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India challenging the order of the respondent dated

5.10.2009, whereby his request for extension of parole was

rejected by the Government.

2. The petitioner was granted parole for four weeks for the

purpose of raising the foundation of his house and to perform

other social responsibilities, including making arrangement of

funds. He was released from jail on 3rd of August, 2009 and the

period of parole expired on 3rd of September, 2009.

3. The petitioner applied for extension of parole on the

ground that he wanted to get the eyes of his father to be

operated for removal of cataract and also wanted to arrange

finances for that purpose. The request of the petitioner for

extension of parole for this purpose was rejected by the

Government vide order dated 5.10.2009 on the ground that he

had already availed one month's parole and there was no

justification for further extension of parole.

4. Cataract of eyes is not a problem which occurs overnight.

This is an age related problem and it is only gradual that

cataract progresses in the eyes, normally of an old person.

When the petitioner was released on parole for one month, he

had ample opportunity to get his father operated for removal of

cataract from his eyes. He also had an opportunity to arrange

the finances for this purpose, though, I find it difficult to

appreciate how a man who has been in jail for many years would

have been in a position to arrange funds for the treatment of his

father. Moreover, one of the grounds on which parole was

granted to the petitioner by the Government was arranging

funds. Therefore, the petitioner could have, if he so wanted, not

only arranged funds but also got his father treated for removal

of cataract from his eyes when parole was earlier granted to

him. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

petitioner could not get his father operated for removal of

cataract in September, 2009 when he was out on parole as the

BP of his father was found to be high and, therefore, the

surgery could not have been performed at that time. She has

placed on record a photocopy of the OPD ticket of the father of

the petitioner. The document placed on record by the learned

counsel for the petitioner does not contain any opinion from the

doctor that on account of the Blood Pressure, it was not possible

to remove the cataract from the eyes of the father of the

petitioner. The OPD slip filed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is dated 27.8.2009. The Blood Pressure, even if it was

high, could have been controlled by giving suitable medication

and surgery for removal of cataract could thereafter have been

performed. The Blood Pressure as recorded in the OPD slip was

150/110 which cannot be said to be so high in the age of the

father of the petitioner as could have prevented removal of

cataract from the eyes of the father of the petitioner. In any

case, there is no medical opinion on record to this effect.

5. The grant of parole being an executive function, it is for the

Government to consider the request made by a convict for grant

of parole and take appropriate decision on it. The court in

exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India can interfere with the order passed by the Government

only if it is shown that it was based upon irrelevant

considerations or is otherwise unsustainable in law. Unless, it is

shown, the court would not be justified in interfering with the

order passed by the Government. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, I have not been able to find any fault

with the view taken by the Government on the request made by

the petitioner. Not only had he time and opportunity to arrange

funds, he also could easily have got the surgery performed for

removal of cataract from the eyes of his father. In any case,

removal of cataract from the eyes of an old man these days is not

considered to be a major surgery and one does not really need to

come out of the jail to be with a person who is to be operated

upon for removal of cataract from his eyes.

6. I find no reasonable ground to interfere with the order

passed by the Government. The petition is dismissed.

V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) JANUARY 19, 2010 RS/