Rajender Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 41 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             W.P. (Crl.)No. 1614/2009

                                   Date of Order: 7th January 2010

#      RAJENDER SINGH                              ..... Petitioner
!                                  Through: Mr. V. Madhukar, Adv.

                              versus

$      STATE OF NCT OF DELHI            ..... Respondent
^                       Through: Mr. Akshay Bipin, 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?                                    Yes


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

1. This is a petition for grant of parole. The petitioner was

convicted on 28.9.1998 in the case registered vide FIR

No.337/89 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden under

Sections 302/307/394/398/34 of IPC and under Section 27 of

Arms Act. The petitioner applied to the respondent for grant of

parole for three months in order to meet his mother, who was

stated to be bedridden and to re-establish social ties with his

family. The request of the petitioner was rejected vide order

dated 19.12.2007.

2. The petitioner again sought parole for eight weeks to

perform last rituals/death anniversary of his mother who had in

the meantime expired on 13.1.2008. The request was sent vide

dispatch No.8148 dated 9.9.2009 and has since been rejected.

3. A perusal of the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the

respondent thereby rejecting the request of the petitioner for

grant of parole, coupled with the status report would show that

parole has been rejected on the following grounds:-

(i) Adverse police report from law and order point of view

stating that convict is a desperate criminal and his other cases

are also pending for trial and he may harm the witnesses.

(ii) There are two other cases pending against the convict.

4. Grant of parole being an executive function, it is for the

Government and not for the Court to consider such a request

and take appropriate decision on it. If, however, it is shown that

the order passed by the Government is based upon extraneous

considerations or on the grounds which are not relevant, it is

open to the Court, in appropriate cases, to interfere in exercise

of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and direct

grant of parole to a convict.

5. It has been stated in para 7 of the petition that the mother

of the petitioner expired on 13.1.2008. The death anniversary of

the mother, therefore, was on 13.1.2009 whereas the petitioner

applied for parole only on 9.9.2009. Had he been genuinely

interested in performing the Death Anniversary of his mother, he

would have applied for parole, prior to and not eight months

after the Anniversary. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

request of the petitioner for grant of parole in order to perform

some rituals on the death anniversary of his mother is genuine.

6. The petitioner does not have an immediate family of his

own. He has five brothers, out of whom one is in jail and

remaining are residing at different places with their respective

families. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner needs

to re-unite with his own family and needs to maintain his

emotional and family bonds with them. It has, also been stated

in the petition that the petitioner needs to repair his house

which is in a dilapidated condition. A perusal of the status

report would show that the petitioner does not own any house.

Therefore, there is no question of parole being granted to him

for the purpose of re-construction or repair of his house.

7. If a convict seeks parole on false ground, it would not be

unjustified to infer that his need to come out on parole is not

bona fide and he does not intend to return to the jail on expiry of

parole.

8. A perusal of the nominal roll of the petitioner would show

that he has been convicted in three other cases, out of which one

was a case of murder, the second was a case of attempted

murder with robbery and the third was a case of robbery. He is

also facing trial in two cases; one for armed robbery in Amritsar

and the other under Arms Act at Rohtak.

9. In these circumstances, the apprehension of the

respondent that if released on parole, the petitioner may jump

the parole and may not come back to the jail to serve the

unexpired portion of sentence awarded to him cannot be said to

be unfounded. The anxiety of the respondent to ensure that the

petitioner does not jump the parole needs to be appreciated

wherever it is justified in the facts and circumstances of the

case. Considering the false ground taken by the petitioner for

seeking parole, coupled with the number and nature of the cases

in which he has been involved, there is a genuine apprehension

of the petitioner jumping the parole and not returning the jail. If

parole is declined in these circumstances it cannot be said that

the order denying parole is based on irrelevant consideration or

is otherwise not sustainable in law.

I, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the order

dated 12.11.2009, whereby parole was denied to the petitioner.

W.P.(CRL) 1614/2009 stands disposed of.

V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) JANUARY 07, 2010 'sn'