Delhi High Court
Vishal Yadav vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 20 April, 2018
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : APRIL 20, 2018
+ W.P.(CRL) 3170/2017 & Crl.M.A.18753/2017
VISHAL YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Puneet Mittal, Sr.Advocate, with
Mr.Gyanendra Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC.
Mr.P.K.Dey with Ms.Shilpi Dey, Advocates,
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the
petitioner-Vishal Yadav to seek parole for a period of three months.
Status report is on record. The petition is contested by the respondent
No.2.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file.
3. Undisputedly, the petitioner along with Vikas Yadav and
Sukhdev Yadav was convicted by a judgment dated 28.05.2008; he was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal preferred by
the petitioner and co-convicts was dismissed by this Court on
02.04.2014. By an order dated 06.02.2015, the petitioner was sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life with no remission for 25 years under
Section 302 IPC and five years under Section 201 IPC. Both the
sentences were to operate consecutively. In the SLP filed by co-
convicts Vikas Yadav and Sukhdev Yadav, upholding the conviction,
Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the sentence order and the period of
twenty-five and five years for remission was ordered to run
concurrently.
4. Pertinent to note is that earlier also, the petitioner had filed
W.P.(Crl.) 1493/2015 seeking parole to file SLP before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, to get his share in the family property and to maintain
family and social ties. By an order dated 30.07.2015, the petitioner was
directed to be taken in custody parole to the residence of his distant
relative Mr.Sukhbir Singh at B-42, Suraj Park, Opposite Badli
Industrial Area, Near Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi-110042 and also to his
lawyer's office from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. for three weeks from the
date of his first visit. It was ordered that the petitioner shall not visit any
place other than the places specified in that order. The police officials
were directed to remain in civil dress. The writ petition was disposed of
in the said terms.
5. The petitioner, however, did not avail the custody parole and
finally on 23.12.2015 opted to withdraw Crl.M.A.19006/2015 and
Crl.M.A.19005/2015 moved in the said writ petition. The petitioner did
not take any steps thereafter to file SLP to challenge his conviction.
After disposal of the writ petition No.1493/2015 on 30.07.2015, after a
gap of about more than two years, it is highly doubtful if the petitioner
has genuine intention to file SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Pertinent to note is that the co-convict Vikas Yadav had filed SLP
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances whereby he
was granted custodial parole; the said appeal came to be dismissed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.08.2015.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urged that the
petitioner has genuine intention to dispose of his property at 5/421,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad and agreement to sell has been executed with the
prospective buyers i.e. Rajender Prasad Saini, Ravi Kumar, Narender
Kumar and Mr.Shekhar Saini. Photocopy of the Agreement to Sell
dated 05.10.2016 has been placed on record whereby `15,00,000/- were
purportedly given to the seller as token money by issuance of cheques
detailed therein. The transaction was for `1.84 crores. The parties had
agreed to complete the sale transaction within 270 calendar days w.e.f.
05.10.2016. The said period has since undoubtedly lapsed.
7. During the course of hearing of this petition, the petitioner
produced proposed buyers of the property in the court and they
expressed their intention to purchase it. On 08.03.2018, the learned
counsel for the complainant referred to the order dated 14.01.2010
whereby it was noted that the suit property stood sold to one Subhash.
Learned Senior counsel, on instructions, sought time to file additional
documents regarding the sale of the said property in favour of Subhash.
No document, however, regarding the sale of the property in question to
Subhash has been produced. Photocopy of a sale deed dated 07.06.2008
has been placed on record whereby Satyawati Yadav (petitioner's
mother) had sold a flat situated at 102, Ground Floor, Dharamputra
Apartment, Plot No.D-89, Kaushambhi, Ghaziabad to Smt.Manju
Yadav, wife of Subhash Yadav. Apparently, this document does not
pertain to the property in question. The factum of sale of the property
to the Subhash Yadav recorded in the order dated 14.01.2010 has
remained unexplained. Besides it, grant of parole for the purpose of
execution of the document for sale is not called for. For that purpose, a
power of attorney can be executed in favour of petitioner's mother or
brother or anyone else to do the needful or the petitioner can be
permitted to visit the office of the Registrar on a specific date in custody
to execute the necessary documents. Relevant to note is that Agreement
to Sell, the photocopy of which has been placed on record, was not
executed by the petitioner himself. Seemingly, it was executed by his
brother Vivek Yadav. It is unclear as to in what capacity/authority
Vivek Yadav executed the said Agreement to Sell. It creates serious
doubt if the petitioner has genuine and real intention to sell the
property in question to the prospective buyers.
8. Allegations against the petitioner are very serious and grave. The
complainant and the crucial witness Ajay Katara have since been
provided security by the State police due to constant threat perception to
their lives. The complainant, a senior citizen is widow and lives alone.
9. The complainant in her response to the writ petition has given
various instances regarding the post conviction conduct of the petitioner
whereby he visited different hospitals without any serious ailments and
this Court ordered that admissions in Batra Hospital totaling 320 days
shall not be counted as a period towards undergone imprisonment. The
complainant apprehends that if released on parole, the petitioner would
flee and there is least possibility of his surrendering after availing the
concession.
10. In the Status report it has been informed that the petitioner has
many other close family members i.e. his wife, grand- mother and
younger brother.
11. Most of the family members are involved in criminal cases
detailed therein. Since it was a case of 'honour killing' and possibility
of the petitioner to intimidate or harm those who have deposed against
him cannot be ruled out as perceived by the victim's mother.
12. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court finds no sufficient and compelling reasons to grant
parole to the petitioner for the reasons/purposes prescribed in the
petition.
13. The petitioner, however, shall still be provided custody parole if
he so intends to file SLP. It could be so considered on his moving
application for that purpose.
14. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
APRIL 20, 2018/sa
