Delhi High Court
Salauddin vs State on 11 August, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11.08.2015
+ W.P.(CRL) 1439/2015
SALAUDDIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ali Choudhary for Ms. Arundhati
Katju, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Crl.)
SI Kuldeep Kumar, P.S. Saket
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 13th May, 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 "in
absence of requisite police verification report regarding verification of
address and grounds taken by convict from concerned police authority i.e.
SHO, Saket, New Delhi which could not be obtained despite several
requests. Further, 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 four years and
six months approximately out of the total sentence of seven 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 13th May,
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 10th December, 2014, whereby his appeal being Crl.A.No.
1661/2014 has been dismissed 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. The petitioner is directed
not to leave the NCT of Delhi during the parole period. During the period
the petitioner remains out on parole, he shall report to the SHO, Police
Station Saket, Delhi, 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
