Mohd. Vakil vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 4283 Del

$~26

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Date of decision: 02.06.2016
W.P.(CRL) 969/2016

MOHD. VAKIL                                                     ..... Petitioner

                          Through :   Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, Adv.
                                      (DHCLSC) and Mr. M. C. Dhingra,
                                      Mr. Abahid Anwar and Ms. Gauri
                                      Neo Ranpal, Advs.

                          versus

STATE                                                          ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.Ananya Mohan, Adv. for Mr. Avi Singh, ASC (Crl.)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondent

to release the petitioner on parole on the ground "to look after his old aged

ailing mother and to provide her proper medical treatment; to re-connect

social ties with his family members & society".

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2016 whereby his

representation for parole on the above ground was rejected by the competent

authority for the following reasons:-

"(i) As per Para 12.5 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010 which provides that "parole would ordinarily be not granted except, if in the discretion of the competent authority special circumstances exist for grant of parole" (c) if prisoner is convicted for multiple murders. The convict has committed murder of two persons.

(ii) In the absence of requisite police verification report regarding verification of address and grounds taken by convict from concerned police authorities i.e. from DCP, South East District, Sarita Vihar, Delhi SHO/PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi & SHO PS Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi, which could not be obtained despite several requests."

3. Insofar as the reasons ascribed by the Competent Authority in the

order impugned in the present petition, the same cannot be sustained for the

following reasons:-

A. Insofar as para 12.5 of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010 is

concerned, the same are mere guidelines and cannot be followed blindly

in every case.

B. The second ground taken by the Competent Authority is a complete non-

application of mind, inasmuch as, the petitioner cannot be visited with

the consequences of the apathy of the administration in furnishing the

requisite police verification report.

4. It is observed that petitioner was granted parole by this Court with

effect from 21.04.2015 to 22.05.2015 and he is not stated to have misused

the liberty granted to him on that occasion.

5. In the present case, a perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner

reveals that he has already undergone more than six years and five months

incarceration out of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him.

The nominal roll further reveals that the jail conduct of the petitioner has

been satisfactory from the very inception of his incarceration.

6. It is trite to state that it is the constitutional right of every convict to be

released on parole periodically so as to enable him to re-establish and renew

ties with family and society and for his mental and physical 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 Only) with one local

surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, Tihar,

Delhi subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall report to SHO PS Sangam Vihar once a week every Tuesday during the period of parole.

(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi during the period of parole, without the prior permission of this Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police Station Sangam Vihar with his mobile telephone number, which he undertakes to keep operational.

(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 information, compliance and to be communicated to the

petitioner.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

JUNE 02, 2016/dk