Moinuddin vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 2921 Del

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 2921 Del
Judgement Date : 22 April, 2016

Delhi High Court

Moinuddin vs State on 22 April, 2016

#33
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 22nd April, 2016

+       W.P.(CRL) 1173/2016

        MOINUDDIN                                  ..... Petitioner
                           Through      Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate

                           versus

        STATE                                        ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Jamal Akhtar and Mr. Shekhar Budakoti, Advocates SI Ashok Kumar, PS H.Nizamuddin

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 (Cr.P.C.)

seeking a mandamus to the official respondent to direct the latter to release

the petitioner on parole for a period of three months in order to enable him

"to construct a new own house; and to maintain family and social ties".

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15th March, 2016

whereby his application for grant of parole inter alia on the above-stated

grounds was rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:-

"rejected in the absence of requisite police verification report regarding verification of address and grounds taken by convict from concerned police authorities i.e. SSP District Kushi Nagar, U.P. and SHO/PS Kaptan Ganj, UP and DCP, South East District and SHO/PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi, which could not be obtained despite several requests.

Further, the convict has last availed one month parole upto 24.07.2015 by the order of GNCTD thereafter the convict has also availed 07 weeks furlough including last availed 02 weeks furlough upto 05.01.2016 by the order of DG (P)."

3. The reasons stated by the competent authority in the order impugned

herein are on the face of it, unreasonable, untenable and unsustainable. The

petitioner cannot be visited with the consequences of the apathy of the

administration in their failure to verify the petitioner's address. Insofar as

the other ground qua the petitioner having availed of furlough upto 5th

January, 2016 is concerned, the same is not one so as to disentitle him from

re-establishing and renewing social and family ties.

4. Even otherwise, a perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals

that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for over nine years

and two months out of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to

him and his conduct in the jail since the inception of his incarceration has

been satisfactory.

5. In the present case, it is observed that the petitioner has been released

on parole and furlough on a number of occasions by the competent authority

earlier and is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to him.

6. 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.

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.20,000/- with cash security of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of

the Jail Superintendent subject to the following conditions that:-

(i) During the period the petitioner remains out on parole,

he shall report to the SHO, Village Narayanpur, P.S. Kaptan Ganj, Distt. Kushi Nagar, U.P. once a week on every Wednesday.

(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the jail authorities as well as 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 concerned Police Station in Kushi Nagar, U.P. without the prior permission of this Court except to surrender before the jail authorities.