Delhi High Court
Arif vs State on 2 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 42/2017
Date of Decision: February 02nd, 2017
ARIF ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sumeet Verma and Mr.Abhijeet
Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State with
ASI Tejram, PS Najafgarh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S. TEJI, J
1. The present petition has been filed under ArticleS 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the
parole for a period of three months on the ground to arrange funds
for and to re-establish social ties with the family and with the
society. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the
order dated 10.11.2016.
2. Perusal of order dated 10.11.2016 shows that an application
for the grant of parole was moved by the convict/petitioner which
was rejected. Since this is in continuation of order of the Deputy
Secretary (Home), the original order was called and notings on the
same were perused.
3. Perusal of noting shows that the parole was availed in
continuity of earlier paragraphs 1 to 7 which deals with the earlier
application rejecting the parole and present case starts from para 8.
As per the undated application, the parole was sought for a period
of three months and the same was forwarded by the Superintendent
(Jail) along with nominal roll and crime details of the case. On the
basis of the same, the Deputy Secretary concerned proceeded with
the file on the format. First is the grounds taken by the convict,
then there are guidelines, then there are details of the nominal roll,
then there is case detail and then there are police reports. There is
mentioning of verification of address and grounds taken by the
convict but the same was opposed on the ground that it may disturb
the law and order situation in the area and the convict may threaten
the victim party and the possibility of jumping parole and
committing similar offence cannot be ruled out. Next paragraph
mentions about the period already undergone by the convict which
is 4 years and 8 months. Thereafter it was forwarded by the Deputy
Secretary (Home) to the Additional Secretary (Home). The
Additional Secretary (Home) gave the noting "We may not accept
his plea".
4. Next column is meant for Principal Secretary (Home) and
the next column is meant for the Minister concerned who just put
their signatures and ultimately as per the noting of the Additional
Secretary, the parole was rejected.
5. The challenge of the petitioner is that the present rejection
order vide order dated 10.11.2016 is without any due consideration
and application of mind. On the other hand, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the guidelines
already issued are under review and whatever the lapse, the same is
subject matter of review and shall be taken into consideration while
framing fresh guidelines. It has been informed that earlier the
application was moved by the convict was ultimately rejected on
10.12.2015 and thereafter the present application was moved. It is
further submitted that the application for the grant of parole is
silent about the rejection of the earlier parole application vide order
dated 10.12.2015 which was never under challenge.
6. From the totality of the material placed before the Court by
both the sides, it appears that the matter has been dealt in a casual
manner. The application filed by the convict does not mention
about the rejection of earlier parole vide order dated 10.12.2015
and it is being subjected that the earlier application resulted into
rejection order dated 10.11.2016.
7. As discussed above in detail that after the noting by the
Deputy Secretary (Home), the remarks were given by the
Additional Secretary (Home). For the purpose of clarification the
same are being repeated"
"We may not accept his plea".
8. The noting made by the Additional Secretary (Home) does
not find any basis and ultimately it was the recommendation of
Additional Secretary (Home) which was accepted.
9. Perusal of record shows that as per the nominal roll of the
convict, his jail conduct was satisfactory and he is maintaining his
behaviour properly and confining himself with good inmate.
Nothing adverse was reported against the convict regarding
involving in any illegal and anti human activities.
10. After conviction, every applicant is to be treated as a
convict. The sole ground of the charges in which the accused has
been convicted cannot be made the ground for rejection of the
parole and this Court is of the considered opinion that whatever
the remarks given at any stage by any authority it has to be borne
out from the record on the basis of material available and
wherever any particular recommendation with regard to grant or
non-grant of parole, that should be a reasoned one mentioning
the factual position and reaching to the conclusion on the basis
of record only and further that if the higher authorities are to
adopt a particular view out of two views on the file then they need
to give reason for agreeing or disagreeing on a particular
recommendation.
11. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of
the considered opinion that non-grant of parole order is not
sustainable in the present case. The competent authority is directed
to pass fresh order as per the observations made above within two
weeks after due application of mind.
12. The present petition is accordingly disposed of.
13. Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent.
P.S.TEJI, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2017
dd
