Delhi High Court
Surender Kushwah vs State on 26 May, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26.05.2016
W.P.(CRL) 476/2016
SURENDER KUSHWAH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Saurabh Kansal and Ms. Pallavi
S. Kansal, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Avi Singh, APP with SI Des Raj
PS Vikas Puri in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondent
to release the petitioner on parole "to look after and provide proper medical
treatment to his ailing parents aged about 65 years & to re-establish social
ties with the family members and society".
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2015 whereby his
representation for parole on the above ground was rejected by the competent
authority for the following reasons:-
"Rejected in view of adverse police report which
states that the law & order may get disturb if the
convict is released on parole. There is every
possibility that the convict can harm the victim and
family members as well. The possibility of
jumping the parole cannot be ruled out. There is
every possibility of convict to commit similar
offence cannot be rules out. The grant of parole of
convict is strongly opposed as he is involved in
two more criminal cases. Convict is involved in
criminal gang activities as per police verification
report"
3. The reasons ascribed by the Competent Authority in the order
impugned in the present petition are without any cogent material and
contrary to the record, inasmuch as, petitioner was granted parole by this
Court with effect from 27.11.2014 to 25.12.2014 and is not stated to have
misused the liberty granted to him on that occasion. It is further a matter of
record that the petitioner was enlarged on bail from 24.10.2007 to
31.08.2009 during the pendency of his appeal and is not stated to have
misused the liberty granted to him during this period either. It is trite to state
that it is the constitutional right of every convict to be released on parole
periodically so as to enable him to re-establish and renew ties with family
and society and for his mental and physical well-being.
4. In the present case, a perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner
reveals that he has already undergone more than twelve years incarceration
out of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. The nominal
roll further reveals that the jail conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory
from the very inception of his incarceration.
5. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in granting parole to the
petitioner. 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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one
local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall report to SHO PS Barpura District
Etawa (UP) once a week every Wednesday during the
period of parole.
(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
concerned SHO during the period of parole, without
the prior permission of this Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Station Barpura District Etawa (UP) with his mobile
telephone number, which he undertakes to keep
operational.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the jail
authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.
6. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
7. 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 26, 2016/dk
