Delhi High Court
Deepak vs State on 10 May, 2016
#3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10.05.2016
+ W.P.(CRL) 364/2016
DEEPAK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ankur Sood, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Crl.) with
Ms. Parul Jamwal, Advocate
SI Kulbir Singh, PS Kirti 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 seeking a
direction of mandamus to the competent authority to release the petitioner on
parole in order to enable him "to re-establish social ties with the family
members and society and proper treatment of his wife who is suffering from
infertility".
2. At the outset, Mr. Ankur Sood, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner fairly states that the petitioner herein prays for a direction to
the competent authority to be released on parole so as to enable him to renew
and re-establish social and family ties, particularly in view of the
circumstance that his wife needs to undergo infertility treatment.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12th January, 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 adverse police report which states
that convict may breach the peace of the area. There
should be an adverse impact on the victim party.
There is every possibility of jumping the parole by the
convict. The possibility of committing the crime
could not be denied. Convict is a habitual offender.
Further, as per nominal roll, the convict has last
availed parole w.e.f 04.03.2015 to 01.04.2015.
grounds taken for parole i.e. treatment for infertility
does not come under the serious illness category.
Convict has been convicted in 03 more cases."
4. The reasons ascribed by the competent authority in the order
impugned herein are contradictory and cannot be sustained. On the one
hand, it has been asserted that the petitioner may jump parole and commit a
crime since he is a habitual offender as reported by the concerned police
station; on the other, it is asserted that the petitioner was released on parole
in the year 2015 without stating that he misused the liberty granted to him on
that occasion.
5. Even otherwise, a perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals
that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than three
years and four months out of the total sentence of five years without
remission; and his overall jail conduct has been satisfactory since the
inception of his incarceration except the punishment dated 2nd September,
2015 for unspecified reasons.
6. In the present case, it is observed that the petitioner has been released
on parole on a number of occasions in the past and is not stated to have
misused the liberty granted to him.
7. It is trite to state that a person in long incarceration is entitled to parole
in order to re-establish social and family ties and for his mental and physical
well-being.
8. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present
writ petition.
9 Consequently, the petitioner is enlarged on parole for a period of four
weeks from the date of his release on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Jail Superintendent subject to the following conditions that:-
(i) The applicant shall not leave the National Capital Territory of
Delhi without prior permission of this Court.
(ii) The applicant shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Kirti
Nagar, Delhi, once a week on every Friday during the period of
parole.
(iii) The petitioner shall provide his mobile telephone number to the
concerned SHO, which he undertakes to keep operational.
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender at the expiry of the period of
parole before the jail authorities.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance
and to be communicated to the petitioner.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 10, 2016
sd
