Delhi High Court
Anis vs State on 13 May, 2016
#7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.05.2016
+ W.P. (CRL.) 963/2016
ANIS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC (Crl.) with
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, Advocate
SI Amit Verma, PS Gokalpuri
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 file a Special Leave Petition (SLP)
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; to arrange funds for the same;
and to maintain social ties".
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th February, 2016
whereby his representation for parole on the above grounds was rejected by
the competent authority for the following reasons:-
"rejected in view of adverse police report which
states that the convict can commit similar offence.
Possibility of jumping the parole cannot be ruled out.
Police verification report from his native place i.e. PS
Khala Park, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, UP has not been
furnished by Prison Department.
Further, the convict, if desires, can file SLP from jail
itself, where free legal aid is available to prisoners."
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 unsustainable.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that the
petitioner has already undergone incarceration for over three years and one
month out of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. It
further reveals that the petitioner was on bail for a period of 16 years
intermittently during the trial as well as the hearing of the appeal and he is
not stated to have misused the liberty granted to him and his conduct in the
jail has been satisfactory.
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 23rd May, 2014, whereby his appeal being Crl. Appeal No.
320/1998 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 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-
Gokal Puri, Delhi, once a week on every Tuesday.
(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 information, compliance and to be communicated to the
petitioner.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 13, 2016
sd
