Rajeev @ Bobby vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 1638 Del

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1638 Del
Judgement Date : 29 February, 2016

Delhi High Court

Rajeev @ Bobby vs State on 29 February, 2016

#46
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                  Date of decision: 29.02.2016
+       W.P. (CRL.) 674/2016

        RAJEEV @ BOBBY                                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through            Mr. Puneet Singhal, Advocate

                           versus

        STATE                                             ..... Respondent

                           Through      Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC (Crl.)
                                        SI Prakash Chand, PS Lodhi Colony
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 25th January, 2016

whereby his representation for parole on the above grounds 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" and the convict has served only 02 months & 02 days incarceration after conviction.

(ii) Adverse police report which states that the grounds do not seem to be genuine. There will be bad impact on the law and order. There may be threat to the victim party/witnesses. The possibility of jumping the parole and getting involved in another criminal case cannot be ruled out.

Further, the convict, if desires, can file SLP from jail itself, where free legal aid is available to prisoners."

3. Insofar as the second reason stated by the competent authority in the

order impugned herein is concerned, it has been brought to my notice that

subsequent thereto, the requisite police verification has been carried out.

Insofar as the first reason i.e. Para 11.1 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010

is concerned, the same are merely guidelines and cannot be applied blindly

in every case.

4. In the present case, it is observed that the competent authority has

completely overlooked the circumstance that the petitioner was acquitted by

the trial Court and has been convicted and sentenced in appeal preferred by

the State.

5. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that the

conduct of the petitioner for the last one year in jail has been satisfactory.

6. The only submission made on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Addl.

Standing Counsel (Crl.) appearing on behalf of the official respondent is that

in the event the present petition is allowed, the petitioner as well as co-

accused namely Lokesh, who has been directed to be enlarged on parole by

this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 672/2016 by way of a separate

order dated 29th February, 2016, would be at liberty contemporaneously,

which is impermissible under the Guidelines.

7. 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.

8. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present

writ petition. However, in view of the submission made by Mr. Sanjay Lao,

learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Crl.) as afore-stated, the present petitioner

shall be released on parole once the co-accused namely Lokesh, the

petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) 672/2016 surrenders before the jail

authorities at the expiry of his period of parole.

9. In the circumstances, since the petitioner wants to assail the judgment

and order dated 24th September, 2015, whereby his appeal being Crl. Appeal

No. 371/1998 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 i.e. subsequent

to the date on which the co-accused surrenders before the jail authorities as

afore-stated, subject to his 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) That during the period the petitioner remains out on parole, he shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Lodhi Colony, Delhi, once a week on every Friday.