Delhi High Court
Satya Prakash vs State on 8 February, 2016
#31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08.02.2016
W.P.(CRL) 297/2016
SATYA PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate with
Mr. Amit Kala, Advocate
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for Mr.
Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
(Criminal) with SI Vishvendra, PS-
Seemapuri, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeks parole only on the ground that the petitioner wants to re-establish ties
with his family and society.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2016, whereby his
representation for grant of parole has been rejected in view of adverse police
report and the possibility of law and order situation in the area and a
perceived threat to the victim party/witnesses. It is also stated by the
competent authority in the impugned order that there is an apprehension that
the petitioner may jump parole and commit similar other offence.
3. The reasons stated by the competent authority whilst rejecting the
petitioner's representation are contrary to the record and cannot be sustained.
From a perusal of the order impugned in this petition, it is evident that the
petitioner has been released on parole and furlough earlier by this Court and
is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to him.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll reveals that the petitioner has already
undergone over eleven years and three months incarceration, out of the total
sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. The overall conduct of the
petitioner has been satisfactory in jail from the inception of his incarceration.
The petitioner has already performed satisfactory as a Sahayak in the jail
factory as is revealed from the nominal roll. The petitioner has been released
on parole and furlough on numerous occasions earlier and has not flouted the
terms and conditions on which the same were granted.
5. It is trite to say 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- Loni,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, once a week on every
Thursday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Station- Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh with his
mobile telephone number which he undertakes to keep
operational.
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police
Station- Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh during the
period of parole, without the prior permission of the
concerned SHO, except to surrender before the jail
authorities.
(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 08, 2016
dn
