Delhi High Court
Sompal vs State (N.C.T.) Of Delhi on 15 March, 2010
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(Crl.) 942/2009
% Date of Order: 15th March, 2010
# SOMPAL ..... Petitioner
! Through: Ms. Charu Verma, Adv.
versus
$ STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
^ Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC
with Insp. S.K. Sharma,
SI Yogeshwar Singh of
Delhi Police and ASI Ved
Prakash of Haryana Police.
* 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 No
reported in the Digest?
: V.K. JAIN, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for
quashing the order dated 25th July 2008 whereby the request
of the petitioner for grant of parole was rejected by the
respondent.
2. The petitioner was convicted in the case registered vide FIR
No. 174/1999 of Police Station Keshav Puram under Sections
364A/452/342 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act. The appeal filed by
him has been dismissed. He applied to the Government for
grant of parole and the request was turned down vide
impugned order dated 25.7.2008.
3. The petitioner is seeking parole primarily with a view to
maintain family ties and to join the mainstream of the society.
A perusal of the order passed by the Government on 25 th July
2008 would show that the request of the petitioner was
rejected with a non speaking order.
4. Grant of parole is primarily an executive function and, therefore, it
is for the Government to consider the request made by a convict
for grant of parole and pass appropriate order on it. If, however, it
is shown that the order passed by the Government is based upon
irrelevant considerations or on non-existing facts or is otherwise
unsustainable in law, it is open to this Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash such an
order and direct the release of the convict on parole.
5. A perusal of the guidelines framed by the respondent on 17 th
February 2010 would show that one of the grounds on which
parole can be granted to a convict is to maintain family and social
ties. Though the order passed by the Government does not
indicate any reason for denying parole to the petitioner, the status
report shows that the DCP(North West District) vide report dated
22nd February 2008 had opposed parole on the ground that the
petitioner was not a permanent resident of Delhi and the ground
taken for parole had not been found to be genuine.
6. Since the report of DCP referred in the status report has not been
placed on record, it cannot be known on what basis the DCP
formed an opinion that there was apprehension of the petitioner
jumping parole. A perusal of the status report filed by SHO Police
Station Keshav Puram shows that the petitioner is a permanent
resident of Village Ratanpur District Bilaspur (Chattisgarh). He
has three brothers, one of whom works in a tent house shop, the
second brother is working as a driver and the third brother is
working as helper in truck. His sister-in-law is working in a
private school, whereas his mother is working in the Municipality
and is residing with her sons, in a joint family in a rented house.
The father of the petitioner has died. The present whereabouts of
petitioner's wife are not known. The petitioner does not have any
child. Since the petitioner has mother and three brothers in his
extended family, it cannot be disputed that he needs to maintain
family and social ties with them. As noted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in 'Poonam Lata vs. M.L. Wadhawan & Ors.' 1987 (3)
SCC 347, release on parole is a part of the reformative process
and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform
himself into a useful citizen. The respondent itself has recognized
the need for a prisoner to maintain family and social ties by
making it one of its grounds on which parole can be granted to a
convict.
7. Since the guidelines farmed by the respondent do provide for
granting parole in order to maintain family and social ties, the
order passed by the Government does not give any reason for
denying parole to the petitioner and the petitioner needs to meet
his brother and mother so as to reunite with the family albeit
temporarily, the order passed by the Government cannot be said
to be a proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the
Government to grant parole to a convict. The impugned order is,
therefore, liable to be set aside.
8. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the
impugned order whereby parole was declined to the
petitioner is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to
be released on parole for a period of one month, from the
date of his release, after two weeks from today, subject to the
following conditions:-
i. He shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court.
ii. He shall not visit any place other than Delhi and his
native place Village Ratanpur District Bilaspur (Chattisgarh) ,
during the period he remains on parole.
iii. He shall supply a copy of the Special Leave Petition
filed by him to the concerned SHO within 24 hours of his
being released from Jail.
iv. He shall mark his presence in Police Station Keshav
Puram, Delhi, or in Police Station within jurisdiction of which
his native place falls, at 10:00 A.M. on every Sunday.
v. While leaving Delhi for his native village, the
petitioner will inform SHO Police Station Keshav Puram and
while leaving for Delhi, he will inform SHO having
jurisdiction on his native village and will give the address of
the place where he will be staying. Similar report will be
given by him on his arrival in Delhi/village, as the case may
be.
vi. He shall comply with such other conditions as the
Government may decide to impose within one week from
today, in order to ensure that he does not escape, while on
parole.
W.P.(Crl) No. 942/2009 stands disposed of.
(V.K. JAIN)
JUDGE
MARCH 15, 2010
Ag
