Delhi High Court
Arvind @ Jagdish Kumar vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi on 17 February, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 96/2011
Decided on 17.2.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
ARVIND @ JAGDISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, Adv.
versus
STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Asim, proxy counsel for
Mr. Ranjit Kapoor, 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 petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 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 get proper
medical treatment for his parents, to arrange finance for the same and to re-
establish social ties with his family members and society.
2. Status report was called and the same is placed on record. The
State has opposed grant of parole to the petitioner on the ground that on
verification, it was found that neither of the parents of the petitioner was
suffering from any serious disease. Further, on inquiry, it was found that
the petitioner has two married brothers, who are living in the same house
with their families and are looking after the parents. He also has two
married sisters. Therefore, it is stated that parole should not be granted on
the ground of ill-health of the parents.
3. Counsel for the petitioner states that apart from the ground of
ill-health, the petitioner has also sought parole on the ground of maintaining
social ties with his family members and society.
4. The nominal roll of the petitioner reveals that he was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `1500/-, in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months, for the offences committed in respect of FIRs
No.773/1999 & 771/1999 under Sections 392/397/302/411/34 IPC & 25 of
the Arms Act. As on 23.12.2010, the petitioner had undergone sentence for
a period of eleven years, one month and twenty seven days and earned
remission for a period of one year and ten months. The offence for which
punishment was imposed on the petitioner was dated 1.2.2010 for which
remission of twenty days was forfeited. Admittedly, interim bail was
granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.9.2006 to 19.12.2006. For the past one
year, he has not been punished for any offence.
5. Counsel for the petitioner states that after the judgment dated
3.7.2007 passed in Crl.A. No.20/2005, dismissing the appeal of the
petitioner, he has neither applied for, nor been granted parole till date.
Furthermore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is one which was
imposed on him on 1.2.2010, on which account he has suffered forfeiture of
remission of 20 days.
6. In view of the fact that the parole guidelines entitle a convict to
claim parole on the ground of maintaining social ties with his family
members and society, merely because it is found that the parents of the
petitioner are not suffering from any life threatening ailment, cannot be a
ground to dismiss his parole application. In Inder Singh Vs. State
reported as AIR 1978 SC 1091, the Supreme Court had devised a
humanising strategy, viz, a guarded parole release every year at least for a
month, punctuating the total prison term, for maintaining family ties of a
convict. It has been held that a prisoner cannot maintain his family ties by
living in a small world of his own cribbed, cabined and confined within the
four walls of the prison. In the case of Inder Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court had directed that:
"12. .......If the behavior of these two prisoners
shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal
though cautious, parole will be allowed to them so
that their family ties may be maintained and inner
tensions may not further buildup. After every period
of one year, they should be enlarged on parole for
two months......."
7. In these circumstances, the petitioner is granted parole for a
period of four weeks to re-establish social ties with his family members and
society, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/-
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(ii) The petitioner shall report to the SHO of the concerned local Police
Station at Uttar Pradesh immediately upon his arriving at his native
place and thereafter, once a week on every Sunday at 10:00 AM.
(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 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.
A copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry forthwith to
the Superintendent Jail for information and perusal.
HIMA KOHLI,J
FEBRUARY 17, 2011
sk
