Delhi High Court
Naveen Ahuja vs State on 30 March, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30.03.2016
W.P.(CRL) 499/2016
NAVEEN AHUJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC (Criminal) with
Mr. Siddharth Sindhu, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeks a direction to the Competent Authority to release the petitioner on
parole on the ground that he has to organize the funds for the medical
treatment of his aged mother and to attend to her at the time she undergoes
surgery to remove her gall bladder.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2015 whereby his
representation for grant of parole on the above stated grounds was rejected
by the Competent Authority for the following reasons:-
"rejected in view of the following:-
1. Para 12.5 of Parole/Furlough Guideline: 2010 which
provides that "Parole would ordinarily be not granted
except, if in the discretion of the competent authority
special circumstances exist for grant of parole."
(c) If prisoner is convict for multiple murders. The
convict has committed murder of his wife and two
children.
2. Adverse police report that the police has expressed their
apprehension that convict may jump the parole and
commit similar offence."
3. A status report has been filed on behalf of the official respondent and
the same is taken on record. A perusal thereof reveals that Raj Rani, mother
of the petitioner, has to undergo a surgery at Siwach Hospital, Rohtak,
Haryana on 31.03.2016.
4. In the present case, it is observed that the petitioner has been released
on parole and furlough on number of occasions in the past and is not stated
to have misused the liberty granted to him. The conduct of the petitioner in
jail has been satisfactory for the past one year. The petitioner has undergone
over 10 years and 6 months incarceration out of the total sentence of life
imprisonment awarded to him.
5. It is trite to say that a person in long incarceration is entitled to be
released on parole for a month in a year to re-establish social ties and for
physical and mental well being.
6. In view of the foregoing facts, particularly the medical condition of
the petitioner's mother, it would be just and expedient to enlarge him on
parole so as to enable him to attend to his ailing mother and remain present
at the time when the latter undergoes surgery, as above mentioned.
7. Therefore, I see no impediment in granting parole to the petitioner.
The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a 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 Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar subject
to the following conditions:-
(i) During the period the petitioner remains out on parole,
he shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Kapasehra,
Delhi, once a week on every Friday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Station- Kapasehra, Delhi with his mobile telephone
number which he undertakes to keep operational.
(iii) 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
