Delhi High Court
Pradeep Pillai S/O M.V.Pillai vs State on 7 September, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1021/2010
Decided on 07.09.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
PRADEEP PILLAI S/O M.V.PILLAI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. L.K.Upadhyay, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate
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. 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 two months to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court with
the help of his family members and for renewing social ties with the
members of his family and the society.
2. The petitioner and co-accused Rohit Bhatti, who were convicted in a
case, registered as FIR No.442/1998 (SC No. 5/08) with Police station: Sarai
Rohilla, Delhi, under Sections 302, 201 & 365 IPC, preferred two separate
appeals before this Court, registered as Crl.Appeal No.78/2009 and
Crl.Appeal No.225/2009, respectively. However, vide common judgment
dated 13.04.2010, the appeal of the accused Rohit Bhatti was allowed and
he was acquitted, but the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was
upheld and his appeal was dismissed. Since the petitioner wanted to file a
Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated
13.04.2010 passed by this Court in Cri.Appeal No.78/2009 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 rejected by the respondent on the ground of adverse police report
and apprehension of jumping the parole by the petitioner and also that the
petitioner would again indulge in same type of offence. Hence, the present
petition.
3. 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.
4. In the present case, a Status Report has been filed by the Joint
Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi stating inter alia that the
application for grant of parole was received through Superintendent, Central
Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi vide letter dated 21.05.2010 and that,
thereafter, reports were called from the concerned police authorities. The
SHO/P.S Sarai Rohilla, Delhi vide letter dated 06.05.2010 verified the
residential address of the convict and stated that father of the convict may
pursue the filing of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. It
is also stated in the letter that the petitioner is not a habitual offender.
However, the SHO/P.S Sarai Rohilla, Delhi opposed the parole to the
petitioner. The DCP, South District, Delhi vide letter dated 11.05.2010
confirmed the present address of the petitioner and stated that the parents
of the petitioner are old and suffering from some ailments and also, that the
control of parents over the petitioner does not seem to be proper. Hence,
there is every possibility of jumping the parole. On the basis of these
reports, the request of the petitioner for grant of parole was rejected by the
competent authority vide letter dated 24.06.2010.
5. 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. The petitioner has also expressed a desire 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.
6. In the present case, the latest nominal roll of the petitioner, as
submitted on 31.08.2010 shows that against the quantum of sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default thereof,
simple imprisonment of 2 years, as on 21.08.2010, the petitioner has
already undergone a sentence of 3 years, 06 months and 05 days including
the period of remission. 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. There is no pending case against him. The Jail Superintendent
has recommended the petitioner for his good conduct and regular
participation in the Jail Industry activities. A perusal of the police report
does not reflect anything adverse to the petitioner and also, that the
petitioner has not availed any relief in the nature of interim bail/parole till
date.
7. In these circumstances, the present petition is allowed limited to the
extent of parole granted to the petitioner for a period of three weeks, from
the date of his release, to enable him to engage a lawyer to prefer a SLP in
the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 13.04.2010 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court, dismissing his appeal, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-
with two local sureties, one of which shall be the father of the
petitioner, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(ii) The petitioner shall report to the SHO of Police Station: Sarojini Nagar
once a week on every Sunday at 10:00 AM.
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi
during the period of parole.
(iv) The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the SLP filed in the Supreme
Court to the Superintendent Jail at the time of surrendering.
8. The petition is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
