Delhi High Court
Jai Kishore vs State on 3 August, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.08.2015
W.P.(CRL) 1603/2015
JAI KISHORE ..... Petitioner
Through: None
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC (Criminal)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for release of the petitioner on parole in order to enable him to prefer
an SLP before the Supreme Court.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2015 whereby his
application for grant of parole on the above mentioned ground was rejected
by the competent authority for the following reasons:-
"(i) As per para 11.1 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010
which provides that "a convict must have served at least
one year in prison excluding any period covered by
remission" and the convict has not served the desired
period as on date after conviction.
(ii) Adverse police report that the grounds taken do not seems
to be genuine, as the brother of the convict is able to fulfil
the financial needs for filing the SLP. There may be
adverse impact on law & order and security problem on
account of release of convict. Police has apprehension
that convict may jump the parole and commit similar
offence."
3. A perusal of the rejection order dated 03.06.2015 reveals that there is
no cogent material based on which it has been stated that the grounds taken
by the petitioner in his application for grant of parole are not genuine or that
his release will adversely impact law and order and security in the area.
Furthermore, insofar as the other ground of convict having served one year
excluding any period covered by remission is required under Para 11.1 of
Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010 is concerned, the same are merely
guidelines and cannot be applied blindly in every case.
4. In the present case it is noticed that the petitioner has been sentenced
for seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-II IPC and has
already undergone incarceration for a period of more than five years. The
conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory in jail.
5. It is trite to say that there are number of judicial pronouncements in
which it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to parole in order to
prosecute proceedings before a higher court.
6. In the circumstances, since the petitioner wants to assail the judgment
dated 15.12.2014 whereby his appeal being Crl.A. No.1271/2014 was
dismissed, by preferring an SLP against the said judgment and order, the
petitioner is enlarged on parole for a period of one month from the date of
his release subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/-
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail
Superintendent. During the period the petitioner remains out on parole, he
shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Shahbad Dairy, Delhi, once a week
on every Thursday. The petitioner shall also provide the SHO with his active
and operational mobile number. The petitioner shall not leave the National
Capital Territory of Delhi without prior permission of this court. The
petitioner shall surrender at the expiry of the period of parole before the jail
authorities.
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Tihar for
necessary compliance and to be communicated to the petitioner.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
AUGUST 03, 2015
dn
