Delhi High Court
Hari Om vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 22 November, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1452/2010
Decided on 22.11.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
HARI OM ..... Petitioner
Through: Thakur V.P.S. Charak, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GNCT 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 filing
a SLP before the Supreme Court of India, against the judgment dated
25.01.2010 passed by the High Court, dismissing Criminal Appeal No.
605/2007 and for re-establising social relations with his family members.
The petitioner has been sentenced by the learned ASJ to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 12 years and pay a fine of `25,000/- in default thereof,
simple imprisonment for 2½ years in FIR No. 724/2007 registered at PS
Sultan Puri, under Sections 363/376(2)(f) IPC. Vide order dated 28.01.2010,
the High Court had reduced the sentence imposed on the petitioner to three
years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC and a fine of `5,000/- in
default thereof, simple imprisonment for 3 months and ten years rigorous
imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and a fine of `15,000/- in default
thereof, simple imprisonment for 6 months with the directions that both
sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The Counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated
24.06.2010 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 to the petitioner on the ground
that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the incident and still is a
minor, is residing next door to the petitioner and his release may traumatize
her and affect her mental growth.
3. The nominal roll of the petitioner was called for. As per the said
nominal roll, against a quantum of sentence of ten years rigorous sentence,
the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of six years, one month and
twenty nine days as on 3.09.2010 and earned remission for one year, one
month and twenty one days. His jail conduct for the past one year is stated
to be satisfactory.
4. 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. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioner has two brothers
who are looking after the petitioner's family including his two children.
Learned ASC submits that since both the brothers of the petitioner are
financially sound, they can help in filing of the SLP.
5. The learned ASC for the state has expressed a grave concern
that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and is a minor even
today, and granting of parole to the petitioner, who resides next door to the
victim, might traumatize her mind. In response, counsel for the petitioner
submits that he has no objection to a condition being imposed on the
petitioner that he shall not visit the locality where the victim resides during
the period of the parole.
6. The ground taken by the petitioner for grant of parole in the
present petition is filing of SLP against the judgment of the High Court in Crl.
Appeal No. 605/2007. The desire of the petitioner to prepare his case, to his
utmost satisfaction, so that he may be able to effectively pursue his legal
remedy in the last court of appeal in the country, cannot be treated lightly.
The petitioner ought not to be denied parole for filing a SLP particularly,
since he has already undergone over half the portion of sentence, 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 `10,000/-
with one local surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial
court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not visit the locality where the victim resides, or
approach the victim or any of her family members during the period of
parole.
(iii) The petitioner shall report to the SHO of Police Station: Begumpur,
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.
(iv) 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.
(v) Immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the petitioner shall
surrender himself before the Jail Superintendent.
(vi) The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the SLP filed in the Supreme
Court to the Superintendent Jail at the time of surrendering.
(vii) 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 of.
DASTI.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 JUDGE
pm
