Delhi High Court
Vikram @ Aman vs State on 4 May, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 491/2017
Date of Decision : May 4th, 2017
VIKRAM @ AMAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. with
Mr.Abhijeet Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Addl.
Standing Counsel (Crl.)
SI Karamvir, PS Narela.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J
1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section
482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction, to quash the order dated
02.01.2017 of rejection of parole and to grant the parole for a
period of two months on the grounds of engaging a senior counsel
for filing SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for arrangement
of funds and to re-unite social ties with family and society.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a convict and
presently undergoing ten years rigorous imprisonment awarded by
the trial court vide judgment dated 25.05.2015 in FIR No.21/2010,
under Sections 376(2)(g)/363/366 IPC, Police Station Narela.
Against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner had preferred an
appeal which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
30.05.2016.
3. Arguments advanced by both the sides were heard and the
material placed on record has been dealt with.
4. Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that
the petitioner is required to file SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court for which he is seeking parole for a period of two months to
engage senior counsel, to arrange funds and to re-unite social ties
with his family and society. It is submitted that while on parole,
the petitioner would get a fair chance to engage a counsel of his
choice to file SLP.
5. Perusal of record shows that the application for the grant of
parole was moved by the petitioner from the jail itself on
04.08.2016. After filing the said application, the competent
authority sought report from the police authorities. The police
authorities reported that the grounds taken by the petitioner in his
parole application were not genuine as the father of the petitioner
was there to file SLP on his behalf. It was also reported that there
could be adverse affect on the victim/witnesses upon petitioner
being released on parole apart from a law and order situation. The
parole application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated
02.01.2017.
6. It is further apparent from the record that the present petition
for the grant of parole was filed on 13.01.2017. Admittedly, the
limitation prescribed for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is 90 days. The period of limitation to prefer SLP
has already expired. The petitioner has not given any reason for
not taking any step to file the SLP against the dismissal of appeal
by this Court within the time prescribed.
7. As per record, the present appeal has been filed by the
petitioner from the jail itself. The parole application was also filed
by the petitioner before the competent authority from the jail itself.
8. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the
present petition has been filed by the petitioner from the Jail, father
of the petitioner is available in the family to prefer SLP on behalf
of the petitioner, period of filing the SLP against the order of this
court in appeal has already been dismissed and no step has been
shown to be taken by the petitioner till the date to file the SLP.
9. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this
Court does not find any ground to grant parole to the petitioner.
Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, the
petitioner would be at liberty to file SLP from the jail itself with
the assistance of Delhi State Legal Services Authority or the Legal
Aid provided to the convicts.
10. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
MAY 04, 2017
dd
