Delhi High Court
Mahinder Kaushik vs State on 30 March, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30.03.2016
W.P.(CRL) 1013/2016
MAHINDER KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bishwajit Kumar Patra, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC (Criminal)
with Mr. Ashish Negi, Advocate
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 for a direction to the official respondent to release the petitioner on
parole in order to enable him to institute an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2016 whereby his
representation 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.
DCP/East Distt., Delhi, SHO/PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi
and SHO/PS Jagat Puri, Delhi, which could not be
obtained despite several requests.
Further, the convict, if desires can file SLP from jail
itself where free legal aid is available to prisoners.
Convict was on regular bail w.e.f. 21.11.2006 to
09.12.2015."
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.
4. A status report has been filed on behalf of the official respondent and
the same is taken on record. A perusal of the status report reveals that
subsequent to the rendering of the impugned order dated 02.03.2016 it has
been verified that the wife of the petitioner resides at the address furnished
by the petitioner.
5. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he has
already undergone incarceration for almost six years and two months out of
the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. The overall jail
conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory since the inception of his
incarceration. The nominal roll further reveals that the petitioner was
released on interim bail by this court on number of occasions, during the
pendency of trial as well as the appeal, and is not stated to have misused the
liberty granted to him.
6. It is trite to say that there are number of judicial pronouncements in
which it has been held that it is the constitutional right of every convict to be
released on parole in order to prosecute proceedings before a higher court
7. In the circumstances, since the petitioner wants to assail the judgment
dated 24.11.2015, whereby his appeal being Criminal Appeal No.60/2000
was dismissed, by preferring an SLP against the said judgment and order, the
petitioner is enlarged on parole for the 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) with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, Tihar subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) During the period the petitioner remains out on parole,
he shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Krishna
Nagar, Delhi, once a week on every Friday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Station- Krishna Nagar, Delhi with his mobile
telephone number which he undertakes to keep
operational.
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital
Territory of Delhi during the period of parole, without
the prior permission of this Court.
(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 compliance and communication of the same to the petitioner.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MARCH 30, 2016
dn
