Delhi High Court
Naresh vs State on 19 April, 2016
#24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19.04.2016
+ W.P. (CRL.) 1014/2016
NARESH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC (Crl.) with Mr.
Ankit Gulia, Advocate
SI Mahendra, PS Subzi Mandi
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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking a
direction of mandamus to the competent authority to release the petitioner on
parole in order to enable him to take care of his ailing mother, wife and two
minor children; and to re-establish social ties with family members and
society.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2nd March, 2016
whereby his representation for grant of parole on the above-stated grounds
was rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:-
"rejected in view of adverse police report which states
that the release of convict may affect the peace and
tranquility of the area which cause law and order and
security problem of the area. There is a chance of
threat or bad impact on the victim party/witnesses of
the case. There is no control of his family members
over the convict. The possibility of jumping the
parole cannot be ruled out.
Further, the convict is also involved in another case
FIR No. 174/06 u/s 376/363/37 IPC PS Subzi Mandi.
Convict has last availed one month parole upto
19.05.2015 by the order of DHC."
3. The reasons ascribed by the competent authority whilst rejecting the
petitioner's representation for parole in the order impugned herein, are not
sustainable. The same are not supported by any cogent material and are
contradictory inasmuch as, the petitioner was released on parole earlier by
this Court and is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to him.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that the overall
jail conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory since the inception of his
incarceration.
5. It is trite to state that a person in long incarceration is entitled to parole
in order to re-establish social and family ties and for his mental and physical
well-being.
6. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present
writ petition.
7. Consequently, the petitioner is enlarged on parole for a period of four
weeks from the date of his release on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Jail Superintendent subject to the following conditions:-
(i) During the period the petitioner remains out on parole,
he shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Subzi
Mandi, Delhi once a week on every Friday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO of the
concerned police station with his mobile telephone
number which he undertakes to keep operational.
(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the NCT of Delhi
without the prior permission of this Court.
(iv) Lastly, the petitioner shall surrender before the jail
authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for necessary
information and compliance.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
APRIL 19, 2016
sd
