Harpal Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 5216 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            W.P.(CRL) 1454/2010


                                                        Decided on 16.11.2010

IN THE MATTER OF :
HARPAL SINGH                                               ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate

                    versus


STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                 ..... Respondent
                    Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for the State

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may           No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?          No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                  No
        reported in the Digest?


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying

inter alia for grant of parole for a period of 3 months for the purpose of

arranging funds and for filing an SLP before the Supreme Court of India,

against the judgment dated 25.05.2010 passed by the High Court,

dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 362/2008. The petitioner has been sentenced

to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Learned ASJ in FIR No. 294/2003

registered at PS Paschim Vihar, under Section 302 IPC.

2. The Counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated

10.08.2010 passed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, rejecting the application of

the petitioner for grant of parole may be set aside. A perusal of the order of

rejection shows that parole has been denied on the grounds that the

residential address of the petitioner could not be verified, that both brothers

of the petitioner were also involved in criminal activities and that there was

apprehension that the petitioner would jump parole.

3. On the question of non-verification of the address of the

petitioner as mentioned in the parole application, the counsel for the

petitioner states that previously the petitioner has been released on interim

bail twice by the Ld. Trial court and the address mentioned in the application

was the same address as the one mentioned in the present petition and that

bail bonds were also submitted on the same address and on both the

occasions, the address of the petitioner was verified by the local police.

4. The nominal roll of the petitioner was called for. As per the said

nominal roll, against a quantum of sentence of life imprisonment and a fine

of Rs.10,000/- in default thereof, simple imprisonment for 6 months, the

petitioner has already undergone a sentence of seven years, one month and

twenty five days as on 25.09.2010 and earned remission for ten months.

His jail conduct for the past one year is stated to be satisfactory.

5. A status report is filed by the SHO of the area, which shows that

verification of the application of the petitioner was carried out by the police

authorities. The residential address of the petitioner at Hari Nagar, as

mentioned in the petition, was found to be incorrect, and after enquiries

from the residents of the locality it was found that it was the petitioner's

elder brother Sh. Navrang Pal, who is residing at that address with his

family. The status report notes that the elder brother of the petitioner owns

a hardware factory and hence, is financially sound and can assist the

petitioner with filing the SLP from the jail. The learned ASC expresses an

apprehension that the petitioner may jump parole, as both the brothers of

the petitioner are involved in criminal activities.

6. The ground taken by the petitioner for grant of parole in the

present petition is for arranging funds and for filing of SLP against the

judgment of the High Court in Crl. Appeal No.362/2008. The petitioner ought

not to be denied parole for engaging a competent counsel to file a SLP

particularly, since his jail conduct is stated to be satisfactory and there is no

pending case against him.

7. In this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed. The

petitioner is granted parole for a period of one month, subject to the

following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-

with one local surety of the like amount, which shall be one of his

family members, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(ii) The petitioner shall report to the SHO of Police Station: Paschim Vihar,

once a week on every Sunday at 10:00 AM and shall not leave the

National Capital Territory of Delhi during the period of parole.

(iii) The petitioner shall furnish a telephone number to the Jail

Superintendent on which he can be contacted, if required. After his

release, he shall also inform his telephone number to the SHO of the

police station concerned.

(iv) Immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the petitioner shall

surrender himself before the Jail Superintendent.

(v) The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the SLP filed in the Supreme

Court to the Superintendent Jail at the time of surrendering.

(vi) The period of parole shall be counted from the day after the date when

the petitioner is released from jail.

8. The petition is disposed off.

DASTI.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 16, 2010                                               JUDGE
pm