Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1940 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(CRL) 1665/2013

       SHASHI SHEKHAR @ NEERAJ                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr.Ankur Chawla with Ms. Neha
                    Kapoor, Advocates

                          versus

       STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                    ..... Respondent
                     Through: Ms. Charu Dalal for Mr. Saleem Ahmed,
                     St. Counsel.
                     SI Neeraj Kumar, P.S. Vasant Kunj.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

                          ORDER

% 17.04.2014

CRL.M.A. 5922/2014 (exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A.5921/2014 (for additional documents) By way of this application, petitioner wants to place on record Annexure A to C i.e., copy of the order dated 28.2.2014 passed in WP(Crl.) 404/2014, copy of the order dated 13.3.2014 passed in LPA No.230/2014 and copy of the order dated 9.4.2014 passed in SLP(Crl.) 3047-3048/2014. Learned counsel for respondent-State has not opposed the request.

Accordingly, the aforesaid documents/orders are taken on record. Application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A.5905/2014 (For extension of parole) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that parole of the petitioner is expiring on 18.4.2014, as such, request is made for taking up the aforesaid application i.e., Crl.M.A.5905/2014 which is listed on 24.4.2014, today itself. Request is not opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Accordingly, the said application is taken up today. It is stated in the application that the petitioner had prayed for extension of parole for a period of three months from 28.2.2014 vide WP(Crl.) 404/2014. It is stated that same was extended upto 14 th March, 2014 by this court vide order dated 28.2.2014. It is stated that thereafter petitioner filed LPA 230/2014 against the aforesaid order. The Division Bench of this court vide order dated 13th March, 2014 had modified the order dated 28th February, 2014 and extended the parole upto 18th April, 2014. It was also observed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid order that no further extension shall be granted to the petitioner and he shall surrender before the concerned authority on or before the expiry of parole period. It is submitted that again the petitioner filed CM 6000/2014 in LPA 230/2014 for setting aside the observation of the Division Bench of this court made in the said order that the parole of the petitioner shall not be extended further after 18th April, 2014. The Division Bench of this court vide order dated 31st March, 2014 observed that no clarification of the order was required. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed as not maintainable.

It is stated that thereafter petitioner preferred SLP (Crl.) no.3047- 3048/2014 against the aforesaid orders passed by the Division Bench of

this court in LPA no.230/2014 for setting aside its observation to the extent that no further extension of parole shall be granted to the petitioner. It is stated that the Supreme Court vide order dated 9.4.2014 did not interfere with the order dated 13.3.2014 passed in LPA 230/2014. However, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that observations made by the Division Bench in the said order shall not come in the way of the Single Judge in deciding WP(Crl.)1665/2013 on its own merit and the ld.Single Judge shall dispose off the said petition on its own merit.

It is stated that the petitioner has spent about 22 years in jail including remissions earned. It is submitted that by the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Sentence Reviewing Board dated 7th January, 2013 wherein it has rejected the case of the petitioner for premature release. It is stated that the said petition is coming up for hearing before this court on 26th May, 2014. It is stated that the petitioner is a heart patient and undergoing treatment for HIV and his mother has also undergone surgery of gall bladder and petitioner's one daughter has got married on 16th April, 2014 and and she will be coming for phera ceremony. In these circumstances, petitioner has prayed that parole of the petitioner be extended uptil 26th May, 2014 when the matter is listed for hearing.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the application. It is stated that petitioner is on parole since 8th August, 2013 i.e., for the last eight and half months and his parole has been extended from time to time on one ground or the other. It is submitted that petitioner has been convicted in three murder cases vide three different FIRs registered against him i.e., FIR no.509/95 u/s 302 IPC registered at P.S.Vasant Kunj, FIR no.538/95 u/s 302/395/411 IPC registered at P.S.Vasant Kunj and FIR no.76/96 u/s

302/397/411 IPC registered at P.S.C.R.Park. It is submitted that petitioner has been given life imprisonment sentence in each of the aforesaid case. It is submitted that the Sentence Reviewing Board has rejected the case of the petitioner for premature release considering the heinous nature of crime and multiple murders including the murder of a gird child of 9 years of age. It is further submitted that in the subsequent Sentence Reviewing Board meeting dated 1.10.2013 the case of the petitioner was again considered and the Board has again not recommended his case for premature release after considering the serious nature of the crime. It is submitted that petitioner has also misused the liberty of parole granted to him as during the period of parole, he is involved in another case in FIR no.36/2014 u/s 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Roop Nagar. It is submitted that NBW has been issued against the petitioner from the court of Sh.D.K.Gautam, ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts on 5.4.2014 and petitioner is wanted in the aforesaid case. It is submitted that petitioner has misused the liberty of parole under the Parole Guidelines and he is not entitled for extension of parole.

I have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

It is admitted position that petitioner has been on parole since 8th August, 2013. By the order dated 2nd August, 2013 in WP(Crl.) 983/2013, petitioner was granted parole for a period of four weeks to look after his ailing mother whose surgery was scheduled on 12.8.2013. Thereafter, his parole was extended by the order of this court dated 6th September, 2013 in WP(Crl.) 1393/2013 for a period of six weeks. Thereafter, petitioner filed another petition being WP(Crl.) 1677/2013 for extension of parole and the same was extended for another six weeks i.e., uptil 30th November, 2013

vide order dated 11th October, 2013 on the ground of ailment of his mother and daughter. Again the parole was extended by the order of this court dated 28th February, 2014 in WP(Crl.) 404/2014 for a period of two weeks to enable him to perform the marriage of his daughter. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Division Bench of this court vide LPA no.230/2014 which was disposed of by order dated 13 th March, 2014. The relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-

"Accordingly, we modify the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge and extend the parole of the appellant for a period upto 18.04.2014. It is made clear that no further extension shall be granted to the appellant and he shall surrender before the concerned Authority on or before the expiry of parole period."

On challenge of the aforesaid order before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has not interfered with the order dated 13 th March, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of this court by observing as under:-

"Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 13 th March, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court extending the parole of the petitioner for a period upto 18 th April, 2014 with condition that the petitioner should surrender before the concerned Authority on or before expiry of the said period but we make it clear that the observation made by the Division Bench shall not come in the way of Single Judge for deciding the W.P.(Crl.) No.1665/2013 on its own merit."

It is also pointed out that during the parole period, petitioner is also involved in another case vide FIR no.36/14 u/s 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Roop Nagar wherein NBW has been issued against the petitioner before the court of ld.ACMM on 5th April, 2014 which prima facie shows misuse

of parole granted to him.

Further the main petition i.e., WP(Crl.) 1665/2013 wherein petitioner has challenged the order of Sentence Reviewing Board dated 7 th January, 2013 whereby the Board has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of heinous nature of crimes of multiple murders including a murder of girl child of 09 years of age and looting, unsatisfactory jail conduct and report from concerned authorities, is coming up for hearing before this court 26 th May, 2014. The said petition shall be decided on its own merits.

In view of the above discussion, the present application for extension of parole is rejected.

The date 24.4.2014 fixed earlier stands cancelled.

VEENA BIRBAL, J

APRIL 17, 2014 ssb