Delhi High Court
Sudhir vs State on 4 June, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.06.2020
+ W.P. (CRL.) 796/2020
SUDHIR ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Kumar, Addl. PP for the State
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. petitioner impugns order dated 30.10.2019 whereby his
application for release on furlough for a period of 3 weeks got
rejected, in the alternative, Petitioner seeks release on emergency
parole for a period of 3 weeks.
3. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section
302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Petitioner has
already undergone 12 years 8 months and 17 days of incarceration as
on 09.05.2020 and earned remission of two years 11 months and 23
days.
4. Learned Addl. PP appearing for the State under instructions
submits that the application for grant of furlough was declined
because petitioner had earlier jumped parole twice and was
subsequently arrested.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as per the
record, petitioner had himself surrendered and it was a case of late
surrender and not a case where the petitioner was re-arrested. He
submits that petitioner had valid reasons for not surrendering on time
because there was threat to his wife by her family.
6. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner had initially
jumped bail in the year 2011 and was re-arrested and thereafter was
granted parole by this High Court with effect from 07.03.2014 and
24.12.2014 and thereafter on 24.02.2016. He submits that he had
always surrendered on his own and on time and it is only in the year
2016 that he had surrendered late because of the threat to his wife.
7. Learned counsel relies on a judgment of coordinate bench of
this Court in Naresh Vs. State dated 09.05.2016 in W.P. (Crl.)
926/2015 to contend that where a convict had surrendered late on
expiry of the parole granted to him voluntarily, he was not disentitled
from grant of parole.
8. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
also the fact that the petitioner had already undergone over 15 years of
incarceration (including remissions) and has earned certificate of good
conduct in 2017 and 2019, I am of the view that petitioner is entitled
to grant of parole for a period of 3 weeks from the date of his release.
9. Accordingly, petitioner is granted parole of three weeks subject
to petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-
with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned
Jail Superintendent, with the condition that at least one surety should
be by one of his family members.
10. Further, :-
(i) Petitioner shall not leave the National Capital Region
without prior intimation to the SHO of the concerned
Police Station; and
(ii) Petitioner shall provide his and the sureties mobile
number to the Investigating Officer which they shall keep
active during this period; and
(iii) Petitioner shall also report to the SHO, Police Station
Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh on every Monday. In
case, SHO Police Station Loni is not available, he shall
mark his presence before the duty officer at Police
Station Loni, Ghaziabad; and
(iv) Petitioner shall surrender to the concerned
Superintendent Jail on the expiry of the period of three
weeks of his release.
11. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Copy of the order be forwarded to the SHO, Police Station
Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh for necessary action.
13. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsel for the Parties through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JUNE 04, 2020
'rs'
