Delhi High Court
Phoolwati vs State on 12 February, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12.02.2016
W.P.(CRL) 475/2016
PHOOLWATI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aekta Vats, Advocate with Mr.
Himanshu Pal, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Criminal)
with Ms. Parul Jamwal, Advocate and
SI Karamvir, PS- Narela
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
praying for a direction to the official respondent to release the petitioner on
parole in order to enable him to institute an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2016 whereby her
representation for parole on the above ground was rejected by the competent
authority for the following reasons:-
"(i) The convict is not entitled for parole in view of
Para 11.1 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010
which provides that "a convict must have
served at least one year in prison excluding any
period covered by remission." The convict has
served only 10 month & 23 days incarceration
after conviction.
(ii) Adverse police report which states that there is
possibility of convict to disturb the law & order
in the society. There may be threat to the
victim party/witnesses. The possibility of
committing similar offence and jumping the
parole cannot be ruled out. The grounds are not
seems to be genuine.
The convict, if desires so, he can file SLP from
the jail itself, where free legal aid is available to
the convicts."
3. The reasons stated by the Competent Authority in the order impugned
in the present petition cannot be sustained. Insofar as Para 11.2 of
Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010 are concerned, the same are merely
guidelines and cannot be applied blindly in every case.
4. In the present case, a perusal of the nominal roll reveals qua the
petitioner reveals that she has already undergone almost seven years'
incarceration out of the total sentence of ten years awarded to her. Is she
expected to serve out her entire sentence before she is enlarged on parole?
Insofar as, the other reason for which the representation has been dismissed,
the same are without any cogent material and are consequently not genuine.
The nominal roll further reveals that the jail conduct of the petitioner has
been satisfactory from the very inception of her incarceration.
5. The petitioner wants to prefer an SLP against the judgment dated
12.10.2015 passed by this Court whereby the appeal filed by her against her
conviction and sentence by the trial court was dismissed.
6. It is trite to say 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.
7. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in granting parole to the
petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of
four weeks from the date of her release subject to her furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with one surety
of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail,
Tihar subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall provide the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Tihar with her mobile telephone number
which she undertakes to keep operational.
(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital
Territory of Delhi during the period of parole, without
the prior permission of this Court.
(iii) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the jail
authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.
8. The 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
FEBRUARY 12, 2016
dn
