Balbir Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 38 Del

              *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve: 22nd November 2010

                                 Date of Order: January 04, 2011

                                   + W.P(Crl.) No. 1327/2010
%                                                                                04.01.2011
         Balbir Singh                                          ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State of NCT of Delhi                                 ...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. Vivek Sood for petitioners.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC 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. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner

against an order dated 12th August, 2010 passed by competent authority declining an

application of the petitioner for grant of furlough on the basis of adverse police report.

The police report showed that the petitioner was a resident of Trilok Vihar, where his

mother was residing. The mother of the petitioner had already entered into an agreement

to sell the residence and she could leave the place any time. There was every possibility

that if the petitioner was released, he may escape the clutches of law and may not report

back to undergo imprisonment. It was also reported that the Mohalla where his mother

used to live was under terror of the petitioner and many people were not willing to talk

due to fear of the petitioner. The people living in that Mohalla ultimately told the ASI that

it would be danger to the peace of the area if the petitioner was allowed to live there.

W.P.(Crl.) 1327/2010 Page 1 Of 2

2. The petitioner was granted parole only about two months before making

application for furlough. The petitioner's request for parole and Furlough at such short

interval is not understood. Parole and furlough are granted to maintain contact with the

family but they are not to be granted so frequently that a criminal, who is undergoing

sentence for serious offence like murder becomes danger to the society. I, therefore,

consider that the competent authority rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner.

The petition is hereby dismissed.

January 04, 2011                                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




W.P.(Crl.) 1327/2010                                                     Page 2 Of 2