Delhi High Court
Kehar Singh vs State on 20 January, 2016
#3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20.01.2016
W.P.(CRL) 20/2016
KEHAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma and Mr. Amit
Kala, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for Mr.
Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
(Criminal) with SI Bhawani, PS-
Paschim 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 on the medical ground of his aged father who is a patient of throat
cancer and his wife who suffers from kidney stone.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2015 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 possibility of jumping the parole and
committing similar offences by the convict either
himself or by engaging in gang activity cannot be
ruled out.
As per record convict has last availed one
month parole up to 08.11.2014 by the order of
GNCTD and thereafter he is getting furlough after
regular interval. Further, in this year (2015) convict
has availed 06 weeks furlough including last availed
02 weeks furlough up to 28.05.2015 by the order of
DG (P).
The convict may be informed accordingly."
3. The grounds stated by the Competent Authority whilst rejecting the
petitioner's representation for grant of parole on the above stated grounds
can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he has
already undergone incarceration of over twelve years and ten and half
months out of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. It
further reveals that the overall conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory
in jail save and except for a single blemish which attracted punishment from
the competent authority by way of order dated 17.08.2010.
5. In the present case, it is observed that the petitioner was enlarged on
parole/furlough on previous occasions as well and is not stated to have
misused the liberty granted to him.
6. 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 for
physical and mental well being.
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 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- Paschim
Vihar, Delhi, once a week on every Friday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Station- Paschim 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.
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
JANUARY 20, 2016
dn
