Delhi High Court
Om Prakash Chautala vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 11 April, 2017
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: 11th April, 2017
+ L.P.A. No.206/2017
OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Kirti Uphar, Mr.Amit Sahni,
Mr.Vaibhav Mishra & Ms.Anju Vaid,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
(Crl.), GNCTD with Mr.Jamal Akhtar
& Ms.Smriti Datta, Advs. along with
Mr.Vimlesh Kr. Singh, Warden,
Central Jail No.2, Tihar, New Delhi,
in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 01.03.2017 by
which the parole granted by the learned Single Judge by an order
dated 06.02.2017 was recalled. A specific challenge has been laid to
paragraph 18 of this order by which furlough granted by the DG
(Prisons) to the appellant for a period of three weeks was also
cancelled.
2. Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge had granted parole
to the appellant for a period of three weeks by an order of 06.02.2017.
However, on a complaint received by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Delhi
High Court that the order granting parole was being misused, the
learned Single Judge took up the matter, issued notice to the appellant,
thereafter heard arguments and recalled the order granting parole.
3. Learned Senior counsel submits that the question of furlough was not
a subject-matter before the learned Single Judge at the time of grant of
parole on 06.02.2017; neither it was a subject-matter before the
learned Single Judge when arguments were heard seeking cancellation
of the order dated 06.02.2017. Mr.Nandrajog further submits that the
order by which parole was granted could not have been recalled by the
learned Single Judge, as the order was not misused, and the grant of
parole and furlough is a right of every convict.
4. Additionally, Mr.Nandrajog clarifies that the appellant had made an
application for grant of parole before this Court in the month of
December, 2016, after the request made to the Authorities concerned
in September, 2016 was rejected in December, 2016. Counsel further
clarifies that on the date the application seeking parole was made to
this Court, the appellant had not applied for furlough and thus, he
could not bring this fact to the notice of the Court in the application
for parole. Counsel submits that this Court had granted interim parole
to the appellant on 30.12.2016 to attend the ring ceremony of his
grand-son. He further submits that the same grand-son is now getting
married and the marriage ceremonies have already begun. Counsel
submits that the observations made by the Court, more particularly, in
paragraph 18 of the impugned order would come in the way of the
appellant for grant of furlough.
5. Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that
the present appeal is a gross abuse of the process of the Court. He has
drawn the attention of the Court to various observations made by the
learned Single Judge where the conduct of the appellant has been
highlighted. He submits that the appellant has misused the liberty
granted to him by the Court. The Court was persuaded to grant parole
to the appellant taking into consideration his medical condition. And
it was found that the appellant was busy attending political rallies and
taking into consideration the conduct of the appellant, the Court was
forced to cancel his parole.
6. Mr.Mehra also submits that during the course of hearing, he had
highlighted the fact that the appellant had applied for furlough which
was granted on 06.02.2017 but this fact was not brought to the notice
of the Court by the appellant. He submits that in case the Court was
made aware that the appellant had simultaneously sought furlough as
well, the Court would have considered as to whether two orders could
have been passed in favour of the appellant simultaneously (one
granting parole and other grant of furlough). He submits t hat this
being a material concealment on the part of the appellant is yet another
attempt to remain outside the jail as he has successfully done as also
detailed in the order of the learned Single Judge.
7. In response, Mr.Nandrajog, without admitting that the appellant
addressed political rallies, submits that there was no condition
imposed upon the appellant while grant of parole that the appellant
cannot address any political rally or participate in the same. Counsel
further submits that the State was equally well aware that the appellant
had sought furlough and the State could have apprised the Court about
the application so made by the appellant. At this stage, Mr.Nandrajog
submits that the anxiety of the appellant being the grand-father and
being 83 years of age is his desire to remain present at the marriage
ceremonies of his grand-son and thus, he limits his prayer only for
being considered for grant of furlough. Mr.Nandrajog, however,
submits that the appellant apprehends that should he seek furlough, the
same would be rejected having regard to paragraph 18 of the
impugned order. It is submitted by Mr.Mehra that should the
appellant make an application today, the same would be considered
within two days.
8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Taking into
consideration the submissions made, we make it clear that in case the
appellant files a fresh application for grant of furlough, the same
would be considered independently by the DG (Prisons) within two
days of receipt of this order and he would pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law, unaffected by any observation made in
paragraph 18 of the order of 01.03.2017.
9. In the light of the above, the present appeal is disposed of.
10. Dasti, under the signatures of the Court Master. As prayed, copy of
this order be also sent to DG (Prisons) by Special Messenger.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
APRIL 11, 2017/ka
