Bhagtu Munda vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 2883 Del

#5
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of decision: 21.04.2016
+       W.P. (CRL.) 917/2016

        BHAGTU MUNDA                                       ..... Petitioner
                   Through              Mr. Michael Peter, Advocate

                           versus

         STATE                                             .... Respondent

Through Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Jamal Akhtar and Mr. Shekhar Budakoti, Advocates SI Sunil Kumar, PS Lahori Gate 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 praying for a

direction to the competent authority to release the petitioner on parole in

order to enable him to re-connect social ties with his family and society and

to wed Ms. Santoshi Topno.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31st August, 2015

whereby his application 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 stated that the ground taken by the convict is not genuine. The possibility of threat to the life of the convict during the parole period from other criminals. Police has expressed their apprehension that he may jump the parole and commit similar offence cannot be ruled out.

Further, the convict has last availed 04 weeks parole upto 08.11.2014 thereafter during the year 2015, he has also availed total 06 weeks furlough and recently returned to jail after availing 03 weeks furlough upto 24.06.15 by the order of DG(P)."

3. The reasons ascribed by the competent authority whilst rejecting the

petitioner's representation for parole in the order impugned herein, do not

inspire confidence as on the one hand, it is admitted that the petitioner has

been released on parole/furlough on earlier occasions and is not stated to

have misused the liberty granted to him and on the other, it is asserted that

his release would pose a threat to the public at large.

4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he has

already undergone incarceration for almost eleven years and two months out

of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him and his overall jail

conduct has been satisfactory since the inception of his incarceration. It is

also an admitted position that the petitioner has been enlarged on parole and

furlough earlier on numerous occasions and is not stated to have misused the

liberty granted to him.

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. Furthermore, in this case in particular, the petitioner wants to settle

down and tie the knot and has also found a suitable partner- Ms. Santoshi

Topno, who in turn has also agreed to solemnize the marriage with the

petitioner at Delhi. The statement of Ms. Santoshi Topno in this behalf is

also reflected in the status report filed on behalf of the official respondent.

7. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present

writ petition.

8. 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.15,000/- 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- Lahori Gate, Delhi once a week on every Tuesday.

(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) The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.

(v) Lastly, the petitioner shall furnish to the concerned Jail Superintendent the proof of his marriage with Ms. Santoshi Topno, at the time of his surrender at the expiry of the period of parole.

9. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of

accordingly.

10. Dasti.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J APRIL 21, 2016 sd