Delhi High Court
Narender Singh vs State on 5 February, 2016
#22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05.02.2016
W.P.(CRL) 363/2016
NARENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Suman Chauhan, Advocate
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC (Criminal) with
Mr. Siddharth Sindhu, Advocate and
Inspector Vikram Singh Chauhan, PS-
Preet Vihar
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 the latter to maintain family and social ties and to
arrange finances for the maintenance of his family.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2015 whereby his
application for parole on the above ground was rejected by the competent
authority for the following reasons:-
"rejected in view of adverse police report which
states that the grounds taken are not genuine. The
convict may repeat the same offence if released on
parole. The convict can harm the victim party as
well. As per the records of SCRB, Delhi, he is also
involved in FIR No.241/2003 U/s 452/392/323/34
IPC. The convict may jump the parole."
3. Save and except the involvement of the petitioner in FIR
No.241/2003, under Sections 452/392/323/34 IPC, the other reasons stated
by the competent authority whilst rejecting the petitioner's representation are
contrary to the record and unsustainable. Insofar as the involvement in the
other FIR is concerned, my attention has been invited to a judgment dated
27.07.2005 whereby inter alia the petitioner has been acquitted of the
offences for which he was charged.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he has
already undergone three years' and eleven months incarceration out of the
total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. The nominal roll further
reveals that the petitioner is also assisting the jail authorities as Meditation
Sahayak and his overall jail conduct is satisfactory. The petitioner is stated
to have been released on parole on earlier occasion and is not stated to have
misused the liberty granted to him.
5. It is trite to state 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 look
after his family.
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- Prashant
Vihar, Delhi, once a week on every Monday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Station- Prashant Vihar, 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.
7. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
8. 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 05, 2016
dn
