Ram Niwas Kaushik v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 1801/2015

1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking release of the petitioner on parole for one month on the grounds of filing an SLP before the Supreme Court of India; and to re-connect social ties with the family and society. 2015:DHC:6833-DB

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12th August, 2015 whereby his application for grant of parole on inter alia the above mentioned grounds was rejected for the following reasons:- “(i) The convict is not entitled for parole as per para 11.[1] of Parole/Furlough Guidelines 2010 which provides that “a convict must have served at least one year in prison excluding any period covered by remission and convict has served only 01 month and 29 days of sentence after conviction.

(ii) Adverse police report that the taken grounds do not seem to be genuine. There may be possibility of law and order and the security problem in the area on account of the proposed release on parole. There will be negative impact on the victim party/witness of the case. As per police report, the threat to the life of convict during the parole cannot be ruled out. Further, the convict if desires, can file SLP from jail itself, where free legal aid is available to Prisoners. The convict may be informed accordingly.”

3. Ms. Kamna Vohra, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing on advance notice has tendered a status report. The same is taken on record.

4. A perusal of the status report reveals that the petitioner was found guilty for the offences under Sections 325/342/34 IPC and released on probation subject to payment of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant and keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of two years with direction to mark their presence at Police Station Anand Parbat on the first day of each month during the period of probation of two years.

5. A further perusal of the status report reveals that the complainant preferred an appeal against the said order passed by the trial Court which was dismissed by this Court. However, the Supreme Court in the special leave petition preferred by the complainant assailing the order passed by this Court allowed the special leave petition and remitted the case back to this Court with the directions to reconsider the same in accordance with law.

6. Consequently, this Court has enhanced the sentence of the petitioner along with two others co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

7. The annexure to the status report shows the previous involvements of the petitioner. The same is reproduced as follows:-

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Sl.       FIR No. Date               Under Section     Police    Present                   │
│ No.                                                    Station   position                  │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 1.        128/88          04/10/1988 342/451/506/34 IPC Anand    Acquitted                 │
│                                                        Parbat                              │
│ 2.        168/88          12/04/1988 452/308/34 IPC    Anand     Convicted                 │
│                                                        Parbat                              │
│ 3.        73/89           14/04/1989 504/506/323/34 IPC Anand    Acquitted                 │
│                                                        Parbat                              │
│ 4.        212/92          24/09/1992 147/148/149/336/29 Anand    Acquitted                 │
│                                      5 IPC             Parbat                              │
│ 5.        210/96          24/07/1996 7/10/55 EC Act    Anand     Acquitted                 │
│                                                        Parbat                              │
│ 6.        78/08           06/06/2008 147/148/149/323/43 Anand    Quashed                   │
│                                      5 IPC             Parbat                              │
│ 7.        145/08          05/10/2008 308 IPC           Anand     Convicted                 │
│                                                        Parbat                              │
│ 8.        199/08          18/12/2008 323/354/509/34 IPC Anand    Cancelled                 │
│                                                        Parbat                              │
│ 9.        05/09           30/01/2009 452/324/506/34 IPC Anand    Cancelled                 │
│                                                        Parbat                              │
│ Writ Petition (Crl.) 1801/2015                                      Page 4 of 5            │
│                                                                         2015:DHC:6833-DB   │
│ 8.       A perusal of the chart tabulated above shows that the petitioner had 9            │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

10. In the present case, it is observed that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of two months only out of the total sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed on him by this Court.

11. In these circumstances, the apprehension of the competent authority that the release of the petitioner may cause a law and order and security problem in the area and will have a negative impact on the complainant/witnesses of the subject case, does not appear to be unfounded.

12. In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J AUGUST 21, 2015