Delhi High Court
Mukhtiyar Singh @ Babloo vs State on 11 August, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11.08.2015
+ W.P.(CRL) 1438/2015
MUKHTIYAR SINGH @ BABLOO ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Puneet Singhal, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC (Crl.)
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
read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking release of the petitioner on parole for
three months in order to enable him to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP); to
arrange funds for the same; and to re-connect social ties with the family and
society.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15 th June, 2015 whereby
his application for grant of parole on the afore-stated grounds has been
rejected by the Competent Authority of the respondent on the ground of
"adverse police report from police authority Delhi which stated that there is
possibility that convict may jump the parole and get involved in Narcotics
cases. The grounds given by accused for obtaining parole are not very
sound. Requisite police report from concerned police authority i.e. SSP,
Distt. Kaithal, Haryana, SHO, PS Chika, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana which could
not be obtained despite request. The convict, if desires, can file SLP from
jail itself where free legal aid is available to prisoners."
3. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that the
petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of seven years
and eleven months approximately out of the total sentence of twelve years
imposed on him. The conduct of the petitioner for the last one year in jail
has been satisfactory.
4. The grounds inter alia stated in the impugned order dated 15th June,
2015 for rejecting the petitioner's representation for parole are not supported
by any cogent material and are not only in the teeth of decisions of this court
but also violative of the constitutional right of the petitioner to prosecute an
appeal before a higher court.
5. It is trite to state 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
and order dated 3rd July, 2014, whereby his appeal being Crl.A.No. 49/2011
has been partly rejected by this Court, by preferring an SLP against the said
judgment and order, the petitioner is enlarged on parole for the 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, Tihar. During the period the petitioner remains
out on parole, he shall report to the SHO, Police Station-District Kaithal,
Haryana, once a week on every Thursday. The petitioner shall also furnish
his mobile telephone number which he undertakes to keep operational to the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar. The petitioner shall surrender
immediately on the expiry of the period of parole before the jail authorities.
7. The writ petition is allowed with the above said directions.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Tihar for
compliance and communication to the petitioner.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
AUGUST 11, 2015
sd
