Brijesh v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for grant of parole to the petitioner for a period ofthree months onthe ground that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court in case FIR No.1341/2007 u/s 376/506 IPC, P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi. However, this Court altered the conviction of the petitioner from Section 376 read with Section 506 IPC to Section 354 IPC and modified the sentence of the petitioner from rigorous imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner wants to prefer an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to take care and provide medical facilities for his wife who is about 8 months pregnant and to 2013:DHC:7524 arrange for necessary finance for the same.

2. Status report has been filed by the State, wherein the address of the petitioner has been verified. It was also verified that wife of the petitioner is pregnant and expected date of delivery is 02.12.2013. However, it was submitted that as per the nominal roll, the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 7 months and 12 days and earned remission of 1 month and 18 days, meaning thereby that he has not completed one year in jail.

3. Reference was made to the Parole/Furlough Guidelines 2010, according to which, in order to be eligible for release on parole, the convict must have served at least one year in prison, excluding any period covered in remission. In this regard, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that these are merely guidelines and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, this court has ample power to grant any relief While framing guidelines, the situation as appearing in the present case was not even contemplated where the life sentence was reduced to sentence for one year, as such, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the Court can grant the necessary relief As regards power of the Court by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction, same was not disputed by learned Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The Parole Guidelines only furnished certain guidelines in which a convict may be granted parole/furlough. As regards the grounds set up by the petitioner seeking parole, same are covered by the guidelines inasmuch as, as per Guideline nos. 9.[4] and 9.7, parole ^ can be granted for delivery ofthe child by the wife ofthe convict and for filing SLP. The factum of delivery of the wife has been verified by the State in the status report and it is also reported that the expected date of delivery is 02.12.2013. The only thing coming inthe way of the petitioner is that he has not served one year in prison. The total punishment awarded to the petitioner is one year, therefore, under no circumstance he can be covered by these guidelines. It is the right of the convict to exhaust the remedy available to him under law /I and in the instant case, he wants to file SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, as an exceptional case, the application is allowed.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of three weeks from the date of his release, on his f furnishing personal bond in the sum ofRs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent and subject to the following conditions:-

(i) During the period of parole, the petitioner shall report to the Duty Officer, Police Station Vijay Vihar, Delhi on every Saturday at 11 A.M.

(ii) The petitioner shall keep the SHO, Police Station Vijay

(iii) During the period of parole, the petitioner shall remain in

(iv) On expiry of the parole period of three weeks, the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Jail, Tihar for information to the petitioner. Petition stands disposed of.

SUNITA GUPTA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2013 as