Delhi High Court
Shyam Dev Yadav 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.) No. 1294/2009
% Date of Order: 15th March, 2010
# SHYAM DEV YADAV ..... Appellant
! Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv.
versus
$ STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI ..... 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 No
reported in the Digest?
: V.K. JAIN, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the order dated 15th September, 2009
whereby parole has been denied to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was convicted in the case registered vide FIR
No. 198/2000 under Section 302 of IPC for committing
murder of his wife. The appeal filed by the petitioner, being
Crl.A.No.51/2007 is dismissed by Division Bench of this Court
vide Judgment dated 25.9.2009. The petitioner intends to
prefer Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court against the Judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court, whereby his appeal was dismissed.
3. 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.
4. A perusal of the parole order dated 15.5.2009 whereby
parole was denied to the petitioner would show that his
request was rejected on the following two grounds:-
(i) Adverse police report from DCP, North District, Delhi
regarding law & order in the area.
(ii) The convict can file SLP from jail itself, where free
legal aid is available.
5. While deciding WP(Crl.) No..1749/2009 wherein parole was sought
to file special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
against an order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, I
inter alia observed as under:
"The request for grant of parole, to file SLP before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court against conviction and sentence for a
serious offence certainly stands on a stronger footing than the
desire to maintain links with the society and to reunite with
the family. Hence, ordinarily such requests ought to be
allowed unless there are reasonable grounds which warrant
taking a different view in a particular case. Such grounds
may include:
i) A reasonable apprehension, based upon material available
with the Government such as the circumstances in which the
offence is alleged to have been committed by him and the
other cases if any in which he is involved, that the petitioner,
if released on bail may not return back to Jail to undergo the
remaining portion of the sentence awarded to him;
ii) A serious apprehension of breach of law and order or
commission of another offence by the petitioner if he comes
out on parole;
iii) Past conduct of the petitioner such as jumping the bail or
parole granted earlier to him;
iv) A reasonable possibility of the petitioner trying to
intimidate or harm those who have deposed against him or
their relatives.
It is neither possible nor desirable to exhaustively lay down all
such grounds as would justify denial of parole in a particular
case. Each case has to be examined by the Government
dispassionately and with an open mind, taking into
consideration all relevant facts and circumstances.
6. As regard the first ground, the adverse Police Report is
the communication dated 3.7.2009 from the Deputy
Commissioner of Police to the Deputy Secretary (Home),
Home(General) Department. It has been stated in the
communication that the jhuggi at Yamuna pusta where
the petitioner was earlier residing has been demolished
and the address of the family members of the petitioner is
not known. It has been further stated in the
communication that the petitioner is serving life
imprisonment in a heinous crime and there is possibility
of breach of peace in case he is released on parole.
7. The appeal filed by the petitioner having being dismissed by
Division Bench of this Court, Special Leave Petition before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the last resort which he can
have in order to prove the innocence which he claims.
Therefore, anxiety of the petitioner to engage a counsel of his
choice and to brief him fully and adequately in order to
enable him to present his case before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, effectively and to his complete satisfaction cannot be
disputed and needs to be appreciated.
8. I fail to appreciate how there can be any law and order
problem merely on account of the petitioner being released
on parole. Admittedly, there has been no complaint against
the petitioner during the period of more than nine years
which he spent in jail. Admittedly, the petitioner is not
involved in any other case. Hence, the apprehension of the
respondent regarding breach of law and order in the event of
his being released on parole seems to be entirely
misconceived.
9. As regards address of the petitioner though he has no place
of residence in Delhi, in jail it has been verified that his
mother Smt. Beena is residing in village Balurghat, Collectry
- Ghat Para District West Dinaz Pur West Bengal where she is
living with another son Ramdev and his family at Jhuggi PWD
Land. Ram Dev is running a tea-stall and selling eatables.
A person cannot be denied parole for the purpose of filing
Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
merely because he does not have any place of residence in
Delhi. A person residing outside Delhi has the same right to
file Special Leave Petition as a person living in Delhi. Hence,
the ground given by the respondent for denying parole to the
petitioner are untenable and unjustified in law.
10. 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 Balurghat, Collectry - Ghat Para District
West Dinaz Pur West Bengal, 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 Kotwali,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi, or in Police Station within jurisdiction
of which his native place falls, at 10:00 A.M. on every
Sunday.
v. Within 24 hours of his being released from Jail, the
petitioner would inform SHO Police Station Kotwali about his
temporary place in Delhi where he will be staying in
connection the Special Leave Petition which he propose to
file before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
vi. While leaving Delhi for his native village, the
petitioner will inform SHO Police Station Kotwali 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.
vii. 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. 1294/2009 stands disposed of.
V.K. JAIN
(JUDGE)
MARCH 15, 2010
'sn'
