Sanjay Arora vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 3646 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(CRL) 481/2013

                                                     Decided on 21.8.2013
IN THE MATTER OF :
SANJAY ARORA                                             ..... Petitioner
                              Through : Mr. A.J. Bhambhani, Advocate

                        versus


STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI                               ..... Respondent
                              Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the
                              State with IO.


CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying

inter alia for quashing of the order dated 18.2.2013 passed by the Deputy

Director (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi rejecting his application for being

released on parole and for directions to the respondent/State to release

him on parole for a period of three months.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had approached

the /respondent/Govt. of NCT of Delhi for being released on parole on the

ground of providing medical treatment to his physically challenged mother

and for restoring social ties, but the said application was turned down.

3. A status report has been filed by the State, wherein it has been

stated that on inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner's mother is aged

about 60 years and is having a deformity by birth in her left leg.

However, no medical documents were furnished by the petitioner's

mother in this regard. It is further stated that the younger brother of the

petitioner and his family are available to look after the mother.

4. Learned ASC for the State refers to the provision of the

Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010, particularly, Guideline No.12.5(a), to

submit that where a prisoner like the petitioner herein is convicted for

murder after rape, ordinarily, parole would not be granted to him except,

if in the discretion of the competent authority, special circumstances exist

for grant of parole.

5. Counsel for the petitioner states that it appears that for rejecting his

prayer for grant of parole, the State has been influenced by the nature of

the sentence awarded to the petitioner and it has proceeded to take into

consideration the magnitude of the crime committed by him, which is

impermissible and has been so held in the case of Shakuntala Devi

Vs.State reported as 1996(36) DRJ(DB) 545. He submits that the

aforesaid consideration ought not to have weighed with the State for the

purpose of grant of parole to the petitioner for the reason that even if he

has been indicted for the aforesaid offence, fact remains that certain

residuary fundamental rights remain vested in the petitioner and those

cannot be completely discarded because he is well entitled to restore his

social ties with the family, more so when he has remained incarcerated

for almost 14 years and has earned remission for a period of 3½ years.

6. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the

counsels for the parties. As per the nominal roll of the petitioner, against

the quantum of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine

of `300/-, in default of payment of fine, SI for a period of twenty one

days, as on 5.3.2013, the petitioner had undergone sentence for a period

of about thirteen and a half years. Column 15 of the nominal roll reveals

that the jail conduct of the petitioner for the past one year has remained

satisfactory and further, there has been no report of misconduct during

the period of interim bail/parole granted to him. Column 16 of the

nominal roll containing the details of the interim bail/parole availed of by

the petitioner, reveals that in the past, the court had granted him parole

on four occasions in the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. Admittedly,

the petitioner has not misused the liberty granted to him and had

surrendered on expiry of the period of parole on each occasion.

7. The Court finds force in the submission made by the counsel for the

petitioner that the nature of the sentence or the magnitude of the crime

committed by a prisoner is not a relevant consideration for the purpose of

examining a case of grant of parole. At that stage, the Court must

examine other aspects including the fact as to whether the petitioner is

involved in other criminal cases, his conduct during the period of

incarceration and whether he has misused the benefit of parole/furlough

granted to him on earlier occasions. When the prisoner demonstrates a

sense of responsibility and reliability during the period of his

imprisonment, then parole is only a positive step in the direction of

reintegrating him in the society and permitting him to let off his steam

once out in the open, so that he can ultimately be rehabilitated at the end

of the sentence undergone. This line of thinking has found voice in a

number of decisions over the past years, including in the case of Poonam

Lata Vs. M.L.Wadhawan reported as (1987) 3 SCC 347.

8. As observed in the case of Shakuntala Devi (supra), the focus of

interest in penology is the individual and the goal is salvaging him for

society. Time and again the Supreme Court has held that all aspects of

criminal justice fall under the umbrella of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the

Constitution. Further the courts have sought to humanise prison

administration to some extent through various pronouncements and much

emphasis has been laid on the right of a prisoner to the integrity of his

physical person and mental personality. The Courts have viewed

sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into

criminality keeping in mind the fact that the modern community has a

primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a measure of social

defence. In this context, reference may be made to the decisions in the

case of Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration reported as AIR 1980 SC

1579 and Rakesh Kaushik Vs. State reported as AIR 1981 SC 1767.

9. In view of the length of incarceration undergone by the petitioner,

who has an unblemished record of conduct in that duration, there is no

good reason for declining his request for parole more so when admittedly

he has been granted parole on four earlier occasions and as per the

record available, he has not misused the said indulgence.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case

and looking at the past conduct of the petitioner, the present petition is

allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole

for a period of four weeks, on the following terms and conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/-

with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Jail Superintendent.

(ii) The petitioner shall mark his presence before the SHO of Police

Station : Malviya Nagar, Delhi at 10:00 AM on every Sunday and

during the period of parole, he shall not leave Delhi.

(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) The petitioner shall keep away from the area around the residence

of the victim and her family members.

(v) Immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the petitioner shall

surrender himself before the Jail Superintendent.

(vi) The period of parole shall be counted from the day after the date

when the petitioner is released from jail.

11. The petition is disposed of.

A copy of the order be forwarded directly to the Jail Superintendent,

for information.

DASTI.

                                                        (HIMA KOHLI)
AUGUST 21, 2013                                            JUDGE
sk/rkb