Delhi High Court
Ravinder vs State on 9 May, 2016
#4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09.05.2016
+ W.P. (CRL.) 1190/2016
RAVINDER ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Jamal Akhtar for Mr.Rahul
Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.)
Insp. Veer Singh and ASI Shyam Sunder,
PS Mukherjee Nagar
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 official respondent to release the petitioner on parole for
three months in order to enable him to institute a Special Leave Petition
(SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and to re-connect social
ties with the family and society.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2nd March, 2016
whereby his representation for parole on the above 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. SSP, Hamir Pur, Uttar Pradesh, SHO
PS Sisolar, Hamir Pur Distt., Uttar Pradesh, DCP,
North West, Ashok Nagar, Delhi, SHO, PS Mukherjee
Nagar, 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. 08.02.05 to
15.12.15"
3. The reasons ascribed by the competent authority whilst rejecting the
petitioner's representation for parole in the order impugned herein, are
without any cogent material and are untenable.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that the
petitioner has already undergone incarceration for over eight years and two
months out of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him and his
conduct in the jail since the inception of his incarceration has been
satisfactory. It further reveals that at the time when petitioner was enlarged
on regular bail w.e.f. 8th March, 2005 to 14th December, 2015, he is not
stated to have misused the liberty granted to him.
5. It is trite to state 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.
6. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present
writ petition.
7. In the circumstances, since the petitioner wants to assail the judgment
and order dated 30th November, 2015, whereby his appeal being Crl. Appeal
No. 279/2000 has been rejected by this Court, by preferring an SLP against
the said judgment and order, 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/- with one local surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) That during the period the petitioner remains out on
parole, he shall report to the SHO, Police Station-
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, once a week on every
Friday.
(ii) The petitioner shall provide the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Tihar 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. With the above directions, the present 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
MAY 06, 2016
sd
