Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar vs State on 23 February, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23.02.2016
W.P.(CRL) 585/2016
ANIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sumita Arora, Advocate for
Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC (Criminal)
with Inspector Narender Kumar, PS
Gulabi Bagh
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 search a suitable life partner for himself and
to re-establish and maintain his family and social ties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2015 whereby his
representation for parole on the above ground was rejected by the Competent
Authority for the following reasons:-
"rejected in view of adverse police report which stated
that the grounds taken by the convict do not seem to be
genuine. The possibility of impact on law and order and
security in the area and threat to the victim party/witnesses
cannot be ruled out. Police has an apprehension that the
possibility of jumping the parole and committing similar
offence cannot be ruled out.
Further, the convict has last availed 01 month parole upto
06.01.15 by the order of GNCTD and thereafter rhe has
also availed 05 weeks furlough during this year 2015 and
recently returned to jail after availing 02 weeks furlough
upto 09.08.2015 by the order of DG(P)."
3. A perusal of the reasons stated by the competent authority in the
impugned order dated 07.10.2015 reveals that the same are specious in view
of the circumstance that the petitioner has been released on parole as well as
furlough earlier and is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to him
by this Court. Therefore, the apprehension expressed in the impugned order
is without any reason or justification. Insofar as, the other reason for which
the representation has been dismissed, the same are without any cogent
material and are consequently not genuine.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that his jail
conduct has been satisfactory from the very inception of her incarceration.
The petitioner has already undergone almost five years and nine months
incarceration, without remission, out of the total sentence of ten years
awarded to him.
5. It is trite to say that there are number of judicial pronouncements in
which it has been held that a person in long incarceration is entitled to be
released on parole for a month in a year to re-establish social ties and for
physical and mental well being.
6. 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 his release subject to his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) During the period the petitioner remains out on parole,
he shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Punjabi
Bagh, Delhi, once a week on every Friday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Station- Punjabi Bagh, Delhi 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.
The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
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 23, 2016
dn
