Delhi High Court
Chander Shekhar @ Shekhar vs State on 9 March, 2016
#39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09.03.2016
+ W.P. (CRL.) 769/2016
CHANDER SHEKHAR @ SHEKHAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. Standing
Counsel (Crl.)
SI Ajeet Kumar, PS C.R. Park
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 competent authority to release the petitioner on parole in
order to enable him to attend to and arrange for proper medical treatment of
his minor daughter as well as of his wife.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th February, 2016
whereby his application for grant of parole on the above-stated grounds was
rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:-
"rejected 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 Distt. Delhi,
despite several requests.
Further, the convict has availed 07 weeks and five
days furlough during the year 2015 including last
availed 05 days furlough upto 19.11.2015 by the order
of DG (P)."
3. The reasons ascribed by the competent authority whilst rejecting the
petitioner's representation for parole in the order impugned herein, are on the
face of it, unreasonable, untenable and unsustainable. The petitioner cannot
be visited with the consequences of the apathy of the administration.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he has
already undergone incarceration for almost eleven years and one month out
of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. The petitioner has
been working as Legal Sahayak in jail and his overall jail conduct has been
satisfactory since the inception of his incarceration. It is also an admitted
position that the petitioner has been enlarged on parole and furlough earlier
on numerous occasions 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 parole
in order to re-establish social and family ties and for his mental and physical
well-being.
6. Furthermore, in the present case, it is observed that the medical
condition of the petitioner's minor daughter and wife warrants his presence
in the home in their hour of need.
7. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present
writ petition.
8. Consequently, the petitioner is enlarged on parole for a period of four
weeks from the date of his release on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Jail Superintendent subject to the following conditions:-
(i) During the period the petitioner remains out on parole,
he shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Chitranjan
Park, Delhi once a week on every Friday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO of the
concerned police station with his mobile telephone
number which he undertakes to keep operational.
(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the NCT of Delhi
without the prior permission of this Court.
(iv) Lastly, the petitioner shall surrender before the jail
authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for necessary
information and compliance.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MARCH 09, 2016
sd
