Manju vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 2388 Del

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 2388 Del
Judgement Date : 28 March, 2016

Delhi High Court

Manju vs State on 28 March, 2016

Author: Siddharth Mridul

#38
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 28th March, 2016

+       W.P.(CRL) 984/2016

        MANJU                                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through      Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate

                           versus

        STATE                                        ..... Respondent

                           Through      Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC (Crl.)
                                        SI Jaivir Singh, PS Hauz Khas


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

view of the circumstance that her son has met with an accident, as a

consequence of which he has been bed-ridden for a substantial period of time

and requires constant attention.

2. The petitioner additionally wants to institute a Special Leave Petition

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and to maintain social ties with

the family and society.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8 th December, 2015

whereby her application for grant of parole on the above-stated grounds was

rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:-

"rejected in view of adverse police report which states the possibility of enmity towards the victim cannot be ruled out. Possibility of threat to the life of the convict and committing similar offences by convict cannot be ruled out.

The Prison Department has not forwarded the requisite police verification report of SSP/Police Station, Jalesar, Distt. Etah, U.P. Therefore, the residential address of the convict is not verified. Further, the convict has last availed 02 weeks furlough w.e.f. 27.08.2015 by the order of DG(P)."

4. The reasons ascribed by the competent authority in the order

impugned herein are contradictory, without any cogent material and

demonstrate a complete non-application of mind. The petitioner (convict), it

is stated, constitutes a threat to her own life. It is further stated that the

requisite police verification from the concerned police station has not been

received. It is lastly stated that the petitioner has availed furlough in the year

2015. In this regard, it is observed that there is no possibility of the

petitioner committing similar offence in view of the circumstance that she

has been released on furlough earlier and is not stated to have misused the

liberty granted to her.

5. The assertion that the petitioner constitutes a threat to herself discloses

the lackadaisical manner in which the representation has been dealt with.

Lack of verification by the concerned police station is demonstrative of the

apathy of the administration and surely the petitioner cannot be visited with

the consequences thereof.

6. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that she has

already undergone incarceration for thirteen years and eight months out of

the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to her. The overall jail

conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory since the inception of her

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 her.

7. In the present case, it has been verified that the son of the petitioner

has met with an accident and therefore, requires constant attention.

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 her release on her 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, she shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Jalesar, Mohalla Nakta Kuan, Distt. Etah, U.P., once a week on every Thursday.

(ii) The petitioner shall provide the Jail Superintendent as well as the concerned SHO of the police station with her mobile telephone number which she undertakes to keep operational during the period of parole.