Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar @ Sonu vs State Of (Nct) Delhi on 5 April, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 63/2011
Decided on 05.4.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
LALIT KUMAR @ SONU ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. S.K. Sethi, Adv.
versus
STATE OF (NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for State with
Investigating Officer.
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 petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for
grant of parole for a period of three months to enable him to file a SLP in the
Supreme Court against the judgment dated 20.9.2010 passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in Crl. A. No.711/2009, upholding the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence awarded against the petitioner.
2. The nominal roll of the petitioner reveals that against the
quantum of sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
`2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of
6 months, as on 16.8.2010, the petitioner has undergone sentence for a
period of 5 years 3 months and 3 days, and earned remission for a period of
5 months and 17 days, thus leaving unexpired portion of sentence for a
period of 4 years 3 months and 10 days. As on date, the remaining period
of sentence of the petitioner would be about 3 years and 8 months,
approximately. The nominal roll dated 16.8.2010 of the petitioner further
reveals that his jail conduct for the past one year was unsatisfactory and a
punishment was imposed on him on 9.2.2010 by stopping his mulakat for a
period of one month.
3. In the status report filed by the SHO, PS Badarpur, Delhi, it is
stated that the reason for rejecting the application for grant of parole filed
by the petitioner, was the fact that his jail conduct had been unsatisfactory
for the past one year. As per the status report filed by the Superintendent
Jail, it is stated that the petitioner was punished for committing jail offence
of misbehaving and using abusive language with the guard on duty on
9.2.2010.
4. On the last date of hearing, it was submitted by the Learned ASC
for the State that upon inquiry from the parents of the petitioner, his father
Shri Rakesh Gupta had stated that he did not have any control over the
petitioner and he did not wish that the petitioner visits his house. Today
counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner is
present in Court and she states that her husband is presently not in Delhi.
She denies that any such statement was made by her husband in respect of
the petitioner. She hands over a photocopy of his voter identity card to
show her identity, which is taken on record. She confirms the fact that in
case parole is granted to the petitioner, she/her husband shall stand as
surety for him.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
present petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted parole for a period of
four weeks to enable him to file a SLP, 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, which shall be one of his
family members, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(ii) The petitioner shall neither approach the victim or any of her family
members or visit the place of their residence during the period of
parole.
(iii) The petitioner shall report to the SHO of PS Badarpur, Delhi, 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 and
forward a copy to this Court through jail.
(vii) The period of parole shall be counted from the day after the date when
the petitioner is released from jail.
6. The petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry forthwith to
the Superintendent Jail for information and perusal.
DASTI.
HIMA KOHLI,J
APRIL 05, 2011
sk
