Delhi High Court
Vijay Jain vs State on 30 March, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30.03.2016
+ W.P. (CRL.) 1051/2016
VIJAY JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra for Mr.
Habibur Rahman, Advocate
versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, Addl. Standing
Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Siddharth
Sindhu, Adv.
Inspector Kuwar Sahab Singh, PS
Farsh Bazar
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 arrange funds for the medical treatment of his
mentally ill son.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th February, 2016
whereby his application for grant of parole on the above-stated ground was
rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:-
"(i) The convict is not entitled for parole in view of
Para 11.5 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010 which
provides that "a minimum of six months ought to have
elapsed from the date of termination of the previous
parole" as the convict has last availed one month
parole upto 17.09.2015 extended upto 24.09.2015 by
the order of DHC.
(ii) In the absence of requisite police verification
report regarding verification of address and ground
taken by the convict has not yet been received from
concerned police authorities i.e. from DCP, North East
District, PS GTB Enclave, Delhi, SHO PS Shahdara,
Delhi and SHO, PS Farsh Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi
despite several requests."
3. The reasons stated by the competent authority whilst rejecting the
petitioner's representation for parole in the order impugned herein cannot be
sustained in view of the circumstance that the petitioner cannot be visited
with the consequences of the apathy of the administration in conducting
police verification. Even otherwise, the applicability of Para 11.5 of the
Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010 is no longer relevant since the petitioner
was last released on parole upto 24.09.2015 and the requisite period of six
months has since elapsed.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that 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
earlier 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 petitioner's son
namely Ankit Jain is mentally ill and is under constant care and treatment at
IBHAS, Delhi.
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- Farsh
Bazar, 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 30, 2016
sd
