Vimal Kumar Bahl vs The State (N.C.T.Of Delhi ) & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 43 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(CRL) 1807/2009

%                       Date of Order : 07th January, 2010

      VIMAL KUMAR BAHL                           ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Sunil Mehta, Adv.
                versus

      THE STATE (N.C.T.OF DELHI ) & OTHERS         ..... Respondent
                      Through:     Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC with Ms.
                      Amita Arora and Mr. Roshan, Mr. Satish
                      Aggarwala, Adv. for R-2

*     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)

This is a petition for grant of parole in order to enable the

petitioner to file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The petitioner was convicted in a Sessions Case

No.59/2001 registered under Section 21 of NDPS Act read with

Section 29 thereof. The appeal filed by him has been dismissed

by this Court vide judgment dated 5th November, 2009 though

the period of sentence has been reduced from 16 years to 13

years. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed, he now wants to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court

by way of a Special Leave Petition.

2. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1724/2009 before this

Court for grant of parole. Vide order dated 2nd December, 2009,

this Court directed the respondent to expedite disposal of the

parole application filed by the petitioner.

3. The parole has been refused to the petitioner on the

following two grounds:

i. The convict has availed interim bail in the current year

w.e.f 14.10.2009 to 03.11.2009 by the order of

Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

ii. There are other family members who can look after his

mother very well and also arrange the filing of SLP.

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

Government and not for the Court to consider the request made

by a convict for grant of parole and pass appropriate orders on it.

If, however, the order passed by the Government is found to be

based on extraneous reasons or is on the grounds which are not

relevant, or is otherwise unsustainable in law, being unjust or

improper, it is open to the Court, in appropriate cases, to quash

such an order and direct release on parole.

5. As regards the first ground, since interim bail has no

bearing on the request for grant of parole for the purpose of filing

Special Lave Petition against dismissal of the appeal, it was not

open to the respondent to reject parole on the ground that an

interim bail was granted to the petitioner from 14.10.2009 to

03.11.2009. His appeal before this Court was still pending at that

time, and therefore, there was no occasion for him to even

consider filing of a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court at that stage.

6. The other ground given by the respondent for denying

parole to the petitioner is that there are other family members

who can arrange filing of a Special Leave Petition. The family

members can never be a substitute in the matter of briefing the

counsel, particularly in a serious matter where the accused has

been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 13 years. Hence,

the respondent was not justified in denying parole on the ground

that there are other members in the family of the petitioner who

can arrange filing of Special Leave Petition on his behalf.

7. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by

this Court, Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court is his last resort. Therefore, his anxiety to engage the best

lawyer he can and to brief him adequately so as to enable him to

present his case effectively before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

cannot be said to be unjustified and should have been

appreciated by the Competent Authority.

8. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the

order passed by the respondent denying parole to the petitioner

cannot be sustained. The order is hereby quashed and the

petitioner is directed to be released on parole , after one week,

for a period of one month from the date of his release, subject to

the conditions that (i)) he shall furnish a personal bond in

the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the

satisfaction of Trial Court; (ii) he shall not leave Delhi during the

period of parole and shall live only in 285-D, Pocket-II, Mayur

Vihar, Delhi which is stated to be the residence of his sister-in-

law; (iii) he shall comply with such other conditions as respondent

No.1 may impose upon him, within one week from today, in order

to ensure that he does not jump parole.

W.P.(CRL) 1807/2009 stands disposed of with these

directions.

Dasti.

(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE

JANUARY 07, 2010 bg