Mohan Lal Walia v. Respondent

Delhi High Court · 02 Sep 2013 · 2013:DHC:8102
Hima Kohli
W.P.(CRL) 1080/2013
2013:DHC:8102
criminal petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking parole on grounds of the petitioner’s past misconduct and lack of factual basis for parole.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1080/2013
MOHAN LAL WALIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, Advocate
VERSUS
Respondent
Through; Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel, CBI with Mr. A.K. Singh and Mr. Baku! Jain, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER o/o 02.09.2013
JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.PC praying inter alia for grant of parole to enable him to attend to the last rites of his deceased mother and to.take care of his diabetic wife.

2. The nominal roll of the petitioner was called for. The same is on record. As per the nominal roll, against a quantum of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years and afine of ^1,000/-, in default, six months' simple imprisonment, as on 12.06.2013, he had undergone sentence for a period of two years, two months and three days, thus leaving an unexpired portion of sentence of one year, two months and thirteen days. W.P.(CRL) 1080/2013 2013:DHC:8102 - j

3. Counsel for the respondent/CBI states that ordinarily, he would not have opposed the present petition but the past conduct of the petitioner creates a doubt that he would misuse the benefit of parole. He states that after the appeal filed by the petitioner in this Court was dismissed on 21.04.2011, and he was on bail in that duration, instead of surrendering, he had absconded and non-bailable warrants had to be issued by the Special Judge. After a great deal of efforts made by the respondent/CBI, the petitioner had finally surrendered before the Special Judge on 09.06.2011. It is also stated on behalf of the respondent/CBI that the petitioner's mother had expired on 24.07.2012 and therefore, the question of his attending to her last rites does not arise. Lastly, learned counsel states that the petitioner has not placed on record any medical document of his wife to establish her health condition, and in any case, the other members of his family, including his son and a daughter, are available to take care of the mother, if she needs any medical assistance.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, the Court is not inclined to allow the present petition for grant of parole. The same is accordingly dismissed. HIMA KOHLI, 3 SEPTEMBER 02, 2013/rkb ^of[2]