Delhi High Court
Vishal Yadav vs State Of Delhi & Anr. on 16 May, 2014
Author: Gita Mittal
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (Crl.) No,905/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.7112/2014
DATE OF DECISION: 16.05.2014
VISHAL YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sanjay Jain, Adv. with Mr.Vinay Arora,
Adv.
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with
Mr.Yashwardhan Tiwari, Adv. for States.
Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.K.K. Dey, Adv. for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No.7112/2014
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P. (Crl.) No.905/2014
2. A status report dated 15th May, 2014 has been filed by the State
which is taken on record.
3. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner stands convicted
for commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34;
Sections 364 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi in SC No.78/02 arising out of FIR
No.192/02, PS Ghaziabad, UP. The petitioner was thereafter sentenced,
inter alia, for life. The petitioner's challenge to the conviction stands
rejected by a judgment dated 2nd April, 2014. The challenge to the
sentences as well as Crl. Revision No.369 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal
No.958 of 2008 for enhancement of the sentence as well as consideration
of the sentences imposed on the petitioner is pending consideration.
4. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks grant of
parole for a period of three months on the ground that the marriage of his
younger brother namely Shri Vivek Yadav, has been fixed for the 24th May,
2014 and he wishes to attend the marriage as well as other ceremonies
relating thereto. Several other grounds have been raised in the writ
petition which are, however, not pressed for the purposes of grant of
parole.
5. The writ petitioner has pleaded that he was on bail during the trial
for a period of two and a half years. The petitioner was also granted
suspension of sentence from 14th January, 2010 till 31st January, 2010
during the pendency of his appeal in order to enable him to participate in
the ceremonies relating to marriage of his sister. The petitioner has
submitted that he has never misused the liberty granted to him.
6. In the status report which has been filed by the State, it has been
verified that the marriage ceremony of Vivek Yadav, brother of the
petitioner is scheduled on 24th May, 2014. The police has verified the
booking of the venue in this regard as well from the Shangri-la - Eros Hotel.
7. Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State points out that so far as sagan ceremony on 20th May, 2014 is
concerned, the same has been verified from the receipt of the payment
effected by the petitioner's family towards charges for the same to the
Country Inn & Suites. The State has also verified that the reception is being
hosted by the petitioner's family to celebrate the marriage on 28th May,
2014 at the K.V. Farms. The certificate confirming the booking has been
placed from the K.V. Farms with the status report.
8. It is on record that the petitioner is the only male member in his
family.
9. An apprehension is expressed by Mr.Dey, learned counsel who
represents Ms.Neelam Katara, the complainant in the case, that she
apprehends threat to her security. We are informed that the complainant
has been granted security by the State.
10. We have also perused the order dated 14th January, 2010 which was
passed on Crl. M.B. No.1571 of 2009 in Crl.Appeal No.741/2008 wherein
while granting interim suspension of sentence, restrictions were imposed
on the movement of the present petitioner in order that to ensure that he
does not interfere with any of the witnesses in the case. So far as the
apprehensions which have been expressed on behalf of the complainant
are concerned, the same can be allayed by imposition of appropriate
conditions and restrictions upon the petitioner.
11. We may note that amongst the several matters which are pending
before us, an application of the complainant with regard to unwarranted
hospital visits and hospital stays on the part of the present petitioner and
his co-convict is pending. One of the issues under consideration is whether
the period which has been identified as unwarranted stays in hospitals, is
not to be treated as part of the sentence. This question is yet to be
adjudicated. We may also point out that the nominal roll placed by the jail
before us, does not make any reference to such period. It is, therefore,
made clear that the consideration of the present writ petition as well as the
present order is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the issues
which are pending consideration in other pending matters.
12. We are also not commenting on the submissions of the complainant
and the State with regard to the conduct of the petitioner during trial and
thereafter including his conduct in the jail. The present order shall not be
treated as condonation of the same.
13. On a consideration of the totality of all the above circumstances, we
are of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice to
permit the petitioner to attend the wedding and the related ceremonies of
his brother Vivek Yadav.
14. In view of the above, it is directed as follows:-
(i) Subject to the writ petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Registrar General of this court, the applicant shall be released on parole
for a period from 20th May, 2014 till 29th May, 2014 (both days inclusive).
(ii) On expiry of the period of parole, the writ petitioner shall surrender
before the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi.
(iii) During the period of parole, the petitioner shall remain within the
boundaries of Delhi as well as of District Ghaziabad and shall report to the
local police on every alternate day starting from 21st May, 2014.
(iv) The petitioner shall not meet or interact with any of the witnesses
including the complainant in the case during the period of his parole.
This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
Dasti.
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
MAY 16, 2014
aa
