Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State on 22 April, 2016
#37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd April, 2016
+ W.P.(CRL) 1183/2016
VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nitish Chaudhary for Mr. Chetan
Lokur, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
(Crl.) with Mr. Jamal Akhtar and Mr.
Shekhar Budakoti, Advocates
SI Rajbala, PS South Rohini
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 urgently construct a new house; and to re-establish social ties with family
members and society".
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11th February, 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 view of adverse police report which states
that the grounds are not seems to be genuine. There
may be an adverse effect on law and order situation
and victim party in the area. There is every possibility
of convict to jump the parole. There may be threat to
the victim party/witnesses.
Further, the convict has last availed 04 weeks furlough
during the year 2015 including last availed 02 weeks
furlough upto 27.06.2015 by the order of DG (P)."
3. The reasons stated by the competent authority in the order impugned
herein are not germane and are contradictory in nature inasmuch as on the
one hand, it is asserted that the petitioner was released on furlough in the
year 2015 without stating that he misused the liberty granted to him and on
the other, it is asserted that his release may cause law and order situation.
4. Even otherwise, a perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals
that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than eleven
years and ten 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 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.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount 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 Vaidpatti, P.S.
Jasrana, Distt. Ferozabad, 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 Ferozabad, U.P. without the prior
permission of this Court except to surrender before
the jail authorities.
(iv) Lastly, the petitioner shall surrender before the jail
authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance
and to be communicated to the petitioner.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
APRIL 22, 2016
sd
