Delhi High Court
Malkit vs State on 21 April, 2016
#9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.04.2016
+ W.P. (CRL.) 1048/2016
MALKIT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Crl.) with
Ms. Parul Jamwal, Advocate
SI Sukhbir Singh, PS Adarsh Nagar
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 official respondent to release the petitioner on parole for
three months in order to enable him to institute a Special Leave Petition
(SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; 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 17th February, 2016
whereby his representation for parole on the above grounds was rejected by
the competent authority for the following reasons:-
"rejected in view of adverse police report which
stated that there is every likelihood that release of
convict on parole may breach tranquility and disturb
the law and order in the area and disturb the family
members of the victim and a fear will be created. The
police authority has expressed their apprehension that
convict may jump the parole and commit similar
offences.
Further, the convict, if desires, can file SLP from jail
itself where free legal aid is available to prisoners."
3. The reasons ascribed by the competent authority whilst rejecting the
petitioner's representation for parole in the order impugned herein, are
without any cogent material and are untenable.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that at the time
when petitioner was enlarged on bail during trial, he is not stated to have
misused the liberty granted to him or extended any threats to the complainant
in the subject case.
5. It is trite to state that there are number of judicial pronouncements in
which it has been held that it is the constitutional right of every convict to be
released on parole in order to prosecute proceedings before a higher court.
6. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present
writ petition.
7. In the circumstances, since the petitioner wants to assail the judgment
and order dated 22nd May, 2015, whereby his appeal being Crl. Appeal No.
633/2014 has been rejected by this Court, by preferring an SLP against the
said judgment and order, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole
for a period of four weeks from the date of his release subject to his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) That during the period the petitioner remains out on
parole, he shall report to the SHO, Police Station-
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, once a week on every
Wednesday.
(ii) The petitioner shall provide the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Tihar with his mobile telephone number
which he undertakes to keep operational.
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital
Territory of Delhi during the period of parole, without
the prior permission of this Court.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the jail
authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.
8. With the above directions, the present writ petition is allowed and
disposed of accordingly.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar
for necessary compliance and communication of the same to the petitioner.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
APRIL 21, 2016
sd
