Full Text
Translation output
$-28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1706/2012
JOGINDER
Petitioner
Through: Mr.A. J.Bhambhani with Ms.Nisha, Advs.
W.P.(CRL) 1706/2012
JOGINDER
Petitioner
Through: Mr.A. J.Bhambhani with Ms.Nisha, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE
Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for GNCTD with Ms.Richa Oberoi, Adv.alongwith SI
Dhirendra Singh, PS SultanPuri
Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for GNCTD with Ms.Richa Oberoi, Adv.alongwith SI
Dhirendra Singh, PS SultanPuri
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
07.02.2013 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks grant of parole for a period of three months. Arguing the present application counsel for the petitioner submits that family of the petitioner consists of his old-aged widowed mother, his illiterate wife and his 12 year old minor son. Counsel submits that on account of long incarceration of the petitioner his entire family is living in a pathetic condition with no source ofincome as there is no one in the family to flilfil
2013:DHC:7494 their day to day needs except him. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner also seeks to re-connect social ties with his family and friends and therefore he be granted parole for a period of three months.
Counsel also submits that earlier also the petitioner had applied for paiole to the Govt.of NCT of Delhi but his request was rejected by the respondent without giving any reasons. Counsel also submits that the petitioner thereafter approached this court and vide order dated 16.10.2012 this court directed the Govt.ofNCT ofDelhi to pass a jfresh reasoned order on the said parole application. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the said direction given by this court, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi passed a detailed order dated 23.10.2012 but again the order was not only perfunctory but without carrying out any proper verification of the address of the petitioner. To support his submissions counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the status report filed by the State wherein the police has carried out the verification of the address of the petitioner that was disclosed by him earlier but the poUce could not meet the family members ofthe petitioner to record their statement at the said address.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
Undoubtedly in the order dated 22.10.2012 passed by the Govt.of NCT of
Delhi it has been stated that the address of the convict could not be verified as the given address was found locked and nobody jfrom the neighbourhood came forward to depose anything. It however does not say that the address of the petitioner was incorrect. It is quite possible that at the time of verification ofthe said address ofthe petitioner, the premises were found to be locked. In the status report filed by the State the stand taken by it is that the police had recorded the statement of family members of the petitioner separately and these family members have clearly stated that they do not require any kind of assistance or help fi:om the petitioner. As per the status report the family members have gone to the extent of saying that they did not want the petitioner to be released on parole.
The petitioner in the present case has been convicted for committing veiy serious offence of gang rape and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the reasons fiimished by the State in the status report, I am ofthe view that the petitioner is not entitled to parole.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
FEBRUARY 07,2013 g KABLASH GAMBHIR, J
07.02.2013 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks grant of parole for a period of three months. Arguing the present application counsel for the petitioner submits that family of the petitioner consists of his old-aged widowed mother, his illiterate wife and his 12 year old minor son. Counsel submits that on account of long incarceration of the petitioner his entire family is living in a pathetic condition with no source ofincome as there is no one in the family to flilfil
2013:DHC:7494 their day to day needs except him. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner also seeks to re-connect social ties with his family and friends and therefore he be granted parole for a period of three months.
Counsel also submits that earlier also the petitioner had applied for paiole to the Govt.of NCT of Delhi but his request was rejected by the respondent without giving any reasons. Counsel also submits that the petitioner thereafter approached this court and vide order dated 16.10.2012 this court directed the Govt.ofNCT ofDelhi to pass a jfresh reasoned order on the said parole application. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the said direction given by this court, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi passed a detailed order dated 23.10.2012 but again the order was not only perfunctory but without carrying out any proper verification of the address of the petitioner. To support his submissions counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the status report filed by the State wherein the police has carried out the verification of the address of the petitioner that was disclosed by him earlier but the poUce could not meet the family members ofthe petitioner to record their statement at the said address.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
Undoubtedly in the order dated 22.10.2012 passed by the Govt.of NCT of
Delhi it has been stated that the address of the convict could not be verified as the given address was found locked and nobody jfrom the neighbourhood came forward to depose anything. It however does not say that the address of the petitioner was incorrect. It is quite possible that at the time of verification ofthe said address ofthe petitioner, the premises were found to be locked. In the status report filed by the State the stand taken by it is that the police had recorded the statement of family members of the petitioner separately and these family members have clearly stated that they do not require any kind of assistance or help fi:om the petitioner. As per the status report the family members have gone to the extent of saying that they did not want the petitioner to be released on parole.
The petitioner in the present case has been convicted for committing veiy serious offence of gang rape and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the reasons fiimished by the State in the status report, I am ofthe view that the petitioner is not entitled to parole.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
FEBRUARY 07,2013 g KABLASH GAMBHIR, J
JUDGMENT