Parvez Ahmed Mir vs State
2019 Latest Caselaw 6363 Del

$-23

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Judgment delivered on 09.12.2019
        W.P.(CRL) 2470/2019

        PARVEZ AHMED MIR                           ..... Petitioner

                          Through     Mr. Mayank Mikhail
                                      Mukherjee, Advocate from
                                      DHCLSC.

                          versus

        STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                      ..... Respondent

                          Through     Mr. Jamal Akhtar and Mr.
                                      Anand, Advocates for        Mr.
                                      Rahul     Mehra        Standing
                                      Counsel(Crl.) for State with SI
                                      Pankaj Kumar from Spl. Cell
                                      /NDR

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

                             JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J.(Oral)

1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for parole for a

period of three months on the ground of re-establishment of Social

ties with family and society. It is submitted that petitioner is in

custody since 31.08.2003 and since then, he has never availed any

benefit of interim bail, parole or furlough.

2. Ld. APP for the State has opposed the petition and submitted

that earlier one co-convict was released on parole but he had not

surrendered and jumped the parole. He had joined a terrorist

organization and died in an encounter on 26.12.2017 at Samboora,

Jammu & Kashmir. It is further submitted that as per provisions of

Delhi Prison Rules 2018, in the following cases, parole shall not be

granted, except, if in the discretion of the competent authority

special circumstances exist for grant of parole:

 Rule 1211(1)-Prisoners convicted under sedition, terrorist activities and NDPS Act.  Rule 1211(11)-Prisoners whose immediate presence in the society may be considered dangerous or otherwise prejudicial to public peace and order by the District Magistrate of his home district or there exists any other reasonable ground such as a pending investigation in a case involving serious crime. The convict has been convicted in case of involvement in terrorist activities with Jaish-e-Mohammad(JeM)

3. In view of the above facts appearing on record and keeping in

mind the fact that petitioner has been convicted for an offence

under Section 3/4/20 POTA read with 121/121A/122/123 IPC &

4/5 Explosive substance Act and sentenced to life imprisonment,

the court is of the opinion that no grounds for grant of parole are

made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

BRIJESH SETHI, J

DECEMBER 9, 2019 /AK