Delhi High Court
Naresh vs State on 9 May, 2016
#2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09.05.2016
W.P.(CRL) 926/2016
NARESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Sethi, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC (Criminal) with
Mr. Ankut Kumar Gulia and Mr.
Kranti Bhandari, Advocates and SI
Jeet Singh, PS- Prashant Vihar
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 arrange funds for his family as well as to re-
establish social ties with the family and with the society.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2016 whereby his
representation for grant of parole on the above stated grounds was rejected
by the Competent Authority for the following reasons:-
".... not agreed to in view of the following:-
(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 15 days
parole up to 03.09.15 by the order of DHC.
(ii) As per Para 11.2 of the Parole/Furlough
Guidelines, the convict is not eligible for
release on parole which provides that he
conduct in prison must have been uniformly
good. As the convict has been punished on
21.11.12 and 31/01.08.13, 03.12.14,
12.06.15, 03.07.15 & 29.10.15 and the Jail
Superintendent has not recommended the
parole of the convict.
(iii) Adverse police report which states that the
grounds are not seems to be genuine as
convict's brother is there to look after his ill
mother. There may be threat to the victim
party/witnesses. There is every possibility
of convict to jump the parole. There may
be harm to the law & order in the society.
The possibility of committing the similar
offence cannot be ruled out."
3. Insofar as, the first reason ascribed by the competent authority whilst
rejecting the petitioner's representation for parole is concerned, the same has
been rendered irrelevant in view of the circumstance that six months have in
fact elapsed since the time the petitioner last surrendered on the expiry of the
parole granted to him. Insofar as, the second ground is concerned, the
competent authority has failed to consider the fact that although the
petitioner surrendered late on the previous occasion when he was last
released on parole but he did surrender voluntarily. The third ground is an
adverse police report, which is without any cogent material in support
thereof. It is also contrary to the circumstance that he was released on parole
on an earlier occasion and is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to
him.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he has
undergone almost eight years and six months incarceration out of the total
sentence of ten years 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. It is further averred that the family of the petitioner is in a state of
penury on account of his incarceration.
7. In view of the above, I see no impediment in granting parole to the
petitioner. 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 only) with one surety of the like
amount (to be furnished by the brother of the petitioner, namely, Rakesh
Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Phal, R/o 104, Masjid Wali Gali, Village Rithala, Delhi)
to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to the following conditions:-
(i) During the period the petitioner remains out on parole,
he shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Vijay
Vihar, Delhi once a week on every Friday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Vijay Vihar, 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 disposed of accordingly.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Tihar for
necessary compliance and onward communication of the same to the
petitioner.
10. Dasti.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 09, 2016
dn
