Delhi High Court
Mohinder Bhatti vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi on 16 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 612/2010
Decided on 16.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
MOHINDER BHATTI ..... Petitioner
Through: Nemo
versus
STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The matter was passed over on the first call as none was present
on behalf of the petitioner. Same is the position even on the second call.
Pertinently, the petitioner is in jail and is being represented by a counsel
engaged by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
2. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying inter alia for his release on parole for a period
of three months, to engage a Senior Advocate for filing a Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court; for arranging funds for the medical
treatment for his mother and for renewing social ties with the members of
his family and the society.
3. The petitioner, who was convicted in a case, registered as FIR
No.37/2007 with Police Station: Khajuri Khas, under Section 376/506 IPC,
preferred an appeal before this Court, registered as Crl. Appeal
No.171/2009, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.08.2009. Since
the petitioner wanted to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme
Court and also wanted to arrange for the medical treatment of his mother
and renew social ties with the members of his family and the society, he
applied to the Government for grant of parole. The said request of the
petitioner was however turned down by the respondent on the ground that
his conduct in the jail was unsatisfactory and that the police report was
adverse to him. Hence, the present petition.
4. Ordinarily, grant of parole is an administrative function of the
Government and the Courts do not entertain such a request, if made
directly. However, in case, the request made by a convict for parole is
turned down by the Government and the said order appears to be based on
extraneous and/or irrelevant consideration, the Courts can exercise their
discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct grant of
parole to a convict.
5. In the present case, the State has filed a reply to the notice to
show cause stating inter alia that the application of the petitioner for parole
was forwarded by the Superintendent Jail, Tihar New Delhi to the State
under the cover of letter dated 09.09.2009. Further, vide letter dated
24.09.2009, the DCP, North-East District forwarded the report of the SHO,
Police Station: Khajuri Khas to the Dy. Secretary (Home) Jail, NCT Delhi,
wherein it was reported that the family of the petitioner was residing at the
given address, but his parole was opposed. It was further stated that the
nominal roll of the petitioner dated 08.09.2009 reflected that his jail conduct
was unsatisfactory.
6. Although the request for grant of parole to file a Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court against the conviction and sentence for a
serious offence is a relevant consideration, considering the fact that the
present petition has been filed through the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee, the said ground itself cannot be considered sufficient for grant of
parole. However, the petitioner has also expressed a desire to arrange
funds for the medical treatment of his mother and to establish social ties
with his family members and the society. Such a request is not
unreasonable unless the circumstances of the case warrant that the Court
takes a different view.
7. In the present case, the latest nominal roll of the petitioner, as
submitted on 31.03.2010 shows that against the quantum of sentence of
seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,500/- and in default
thereof, simple imprisonment of 9 months, as on 15.03.2010, the petitioner
had already undergone a sentence of 2 years, 11 months and 23 days. If
the period of remission earned by him is added, the unexpired period of
sentence as on the said date, was 3 years, 8 months and 27 days.
Considering the fact that three and a half months have expired ever since
the submission of the said nominal roll, the remaining unexpired period of
sentence reduces to about 3 years and 5 months. In other words, the
petitioner has already undergone conviction of almost half of the period of
sentence. The current nominal roll also shows that the jail conduct of the
petitioner for the past one year, i.e., for the year 2009, is satisfactory. A
perusal of the police report does not reflect anything adverse to the
petitioner.
8. In these circumstances, where there is no serious apprehension
of breach of law and order and there is no other pending case against the
petitioner and nor is there any complaint as to his past conduct, such as
jumping of bail or parole granted to him earlier, it is directed that the
petitioner be granted parole for a period of six weeks, subject to his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
9. The aforesaid grant of parole is subject to the condition that the
petitioner shall mark his attendance before the SHO of the concerned Police
Station on every Monday at 10:00 AM. Further, the petitioner shall not visit
the locality where the victim resides or the surrounding area thereof. He
shall remain in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi during the period of parole.
Immediately after the period of parole is over, the petitioner shall surrender
before the jail authorities.
10. A copy of this order be sent directly to the Jail Superintendent
for perusal and compliance. Another copy of the order be forwarded to the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, for it to note the absence of the
counsel to whom the brief was assigned, and to ensure that default of
appearance in cases does not occur in the future.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 16, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
