Mohan vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 1098 Del

               *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                          Date of Reserve: February 10, 2011

                                 Date of Decision: February 23, 2011

                                     + W.P(Crl) No. 13/2011
%                                                                                23.02.2011
         Mohan                                                 ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State of the NCT of Delhi                             ...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. A.J. Bhambhani for petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel for State/respondent.


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                            JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 13th September passed

by the respondent, rejecting an application for parole of the petitioner.

2. The report of competent authority/ respondent shows that the petitioner was

awarded life imprisonment under Section 376/506, for raping a minor girl. The petitioner

used to station his rehri in front of the girls' school gate and he was convicted for raping

a minor girl whom he dragged inside the toilet and committed rape on her and

threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone.

3. For seeking parole, the petitioner, in the application for parole as well as at the

time of arrest, had given his village address incorrect. He gave his address as Village

W.P.(Crl.) 13/2011 Page 1 Of 2 and Post Office Laxmi Pur Police Station Laxmi Pur, District Purnia, Bihar. Inquiries by

police revealed that there was no such village as Laxmi Pur in District Purnia, Bihar. In

fact, there was a village Laxminia Police Station Gambharia, District Madhepura where

father of the petitioner lived and father was very well aware about the petitioner being in

Tihar Jail, Delhi in a rape case.

4. This itself shows that the petitioner deliberately gave false address so that his

whereabouts may not be found out after he was released on parole. The petitioner had

further stated that he had one and a half bigha of land which he wants to sell. Inquiries

revealed that he had no land whatsoever in District Madhepura or in District Purnia. It is

apparent that the petitioner's intention was to get parole and thereafter escape from the

clutches of law. I find that the application for parole of the petitioner was rightly declined

by the respondent. This petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.

February 23, 2011                                 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




W.P.(Crl.) 13/2011                                                                  Page 2 Of 2