Delhi High Court
Virender Kumar @ Mintu vs State on 11 May, 2016
#46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11.05.2016
W.P.(CRL) 1488/2016
VIRENDER KUMAR @ MINTU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.K. Dubey, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Criminal)
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.)
seeking a mandamus to the official respondent to release the petitioner on
parole in order to enable him to repair his damaged house as well as to re-
establish social ties with the family and society.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2016 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) The convict is not entitled for parole as per
para 12.5 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines
2010 specifies that "parole would ordinarily
be not granted except, if in the discretion of
the Competent Authority special
circumstance exist for grant of parole" (c) If
prisoner is a convict for multiple murder, as
the convict has committed murder of three
persons.
(ii) Adverse police report which states that the
grounds given in the application are not
found genuine. The convict's family is
residing in well constructed house.
Convict's father and brothers are capable to
look after his family. There may be adverse
affect on victim party and law & order
situation in the area, if the convict is
released on parole. There is every
possibility of convict for jumping the parole,
if granted.
Further, the convict has last availed 01 month
parole w.e.f. 30.03.2015 to 30.04.2015 by the
order of DHC."
3. The reasons stated by the Competent Authority are contrary to the
record, inasmuch as, this Court had already released him on parole w.e.f.
30.03.2015 to 30.04.2015, after considering the scope and ambit of para 12.5
of Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010. Insofar as, the other reason stated in
the rejection order is concerned, the same cannot be countenanced, in view
of the circumstance that it is trite to say that every convict in long
incarceration is entitled to parole to re-establish social and family ties and for
physical and mental well being. Furthermore, photographs of the family
house of the petitioner have been placed on record, which clearly support his
contention that the said house is in a dilapidated condition and needs repair.
4. 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 the address of the petitioner has been duly verified.
5. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he has
undergone almost twelve years and two months incarceration out of the total
sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him.
6. It is trite to say that a person in long incarceration, as above stated, 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.
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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) 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- Village
Sara, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, once a week
on every Friday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Station - Village Sara, District Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh with his mobile telephone number which he
undertakes to keep operational.
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
SHO Police Station- Village Sara, District Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh during the period of parole, without the
prior permission of this Court, except to surrender
before the jail authorities.
(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.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 11, 2016
dn
