Delhi High Court
Tej Pal vs State on 17 March, 2016
#7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th March, 2016
+ W.P.(CRL) 636/2016
TEJ PAL ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC (Crl.)
SI Surender Pal, PS Krishna Nagar
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 (Cr.P.C.)
praying as follows:-
"(i) Get the construction of his house which would
otherwise face the danger of collapse endangering lives.
(ii) Re-establish social ties as the petitioner has been in
prison since last almost 12 years.
(iii) Pass any other order or directions which deem fit under
the facts and circumstances of the present petition, in the
interest of justice."
2. Ms. Rakhi Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner limits the relief in the present petition to a direction to the
competent authority to release the petitioner on parole in order to enable him
to re-connect social ties with the family and society.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19th January, 2016
whereby his application for grant of parole inter alia on the above-stated
ground was rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:-
"rejected in view of adverse police report which states
that convict is a person of criminal nature and the
possibility of not committing any offence is very less.
Further, as per nominal roll, the convict has last
availed 01 month parole w.e.f. 02.03.2015 to
03.04.2015 by the order of GNCTD and thereafter, he
has also availed 07 weeks furlough including last
availed 02 weeks furlough w.e.f. 02.09.2015 to
17.09.2015 by the order of DG (P)."
4. The reasons stated by the competent authority in the order impugned
herein tantamount to profiling and even otherwise, are without any cogent
material, unsustainable and contrary to the record.
5. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that the
petitioner has already undergone incarceration for almost eleven and a half
years out of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him and his
conduct in the jail since the inception of his incarceration has been
satisfactory.
6. In the present case, it is observed that the petitioner has been released
on interim bail, parole and furlough on numerous occasions in the past and is
not stated to have misused the concession granted to him.
7. 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.
8. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present
writ petition.
9. 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 that:-
(i) During the period the petitioner remains out on parole,
he shall report to the SHO, Village Thiriya Salepur,
PS Patwali, Distt. Rampur, U.P. once a week on every
Wednesday.
(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 concerned
Police Station in Rampur, U.P. without the prior
permission of this Court except to surrender before
the jail authorities.
(iv) Lastly, the petitioner shall surrender before the jail
authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for necessary
information and compliance.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MARCH 17, 2016
sd
