Delhi High Court
Mujib vs State on 4 May, 2016
#10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.05.2016
W.P.(CRL) 1194/2016
MUJIB ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Singhal, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Criminal)
with Ms. Srilina Roy and Ms. Neha
Dhir, Advocates
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 engage counsel; arrange funds for filing of
SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and to re-establish social
ties with the family and the society.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2016 whereby his
representation for grant of parole on the above stated grounds was rejected
by the Competent Authority for the following reasons:-
".... ...rejected in view of the following:-
(i) Adverse police report of Delhi which states that
there is likely impact on the victim/witness. The
possibility of jumping the parole by convict can
not be ruled out.
(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 of his native
place i.e. from SP Ghaziabad and SHO PS Loni,
despite several requests.
Further, the convict, if desires, can file SLP from
Jail itself where free legal aid is available to petitioners.
The convict may be informed accordingly."
3. Upon verification, a status report has been filed on behalf of the
official respondent. The same is taken on record. A perusal of the same
reveals that an enquiry was conducted by the concerned Police Station in
order to verify the addresses furnished by the petitioner and the places where
he would be available, if and when released on parole. In this behalf, the
status report reads as under:-
"1. Romance factory, Ganda Nala, Johripur, Delhi
Police visited at the given factory but the Manager in the
above factory told that there is not any person namely
Mujib @ Karan residing or working in our factory,
statement is enclosed.
2. H.N.166, Purvi Mustafabad, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
Police visited at the given place but there is not any
house number or address as given in the petition,
statement of municipality member is attached."
4. Upon a query from the Court with regard to the correct address where
the petitioner would reside, in the event this Court enlarges him on parole,
the counsel expresses inability to furnish a correct address on account of lack
of instructions from the petitioner in this behalf despite an interview
conducted over video conferencing.
5. In view of the aforesaid, since the petitioner has been unable to furnish
an address where he would be available during the period of parole, if
enlarged, the prayer sought in the present petition cannot be sustained.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 04, 2016
dn
