Full Text
% 15.12.2009
Present: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Navin Chawla, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Ms. Meera Bhatia, Standing Counsel, for the State.
SI Pratap Singh, PS Kashmiri Gate.
+ W.P. (Crl.) No. 1636/2009
This is a petition for grant of parole for three months in order to enable the petitioner to establish social ties and re-establish long social ties with his family, including his children and mother.
JUDGMENT
2. Grant of parole being an executive function, it is for the Government and not for the Court to consider the request made by a convict for grant of parole and pass appropriate orders on it. If, however, the order passed by the Government is found to be based on extraneous reasons or on the grounds which are not relevant, or is otherwise unjust or improper, it is open to the Court, in appropriate cases to quash such an order and direct release on parole.
3. A perusal of the Status Report filed by the respondent shows that the petitioner is involved in as many as 29 cases of burglary, attempt to murder, robbery, criminal intimidation and murder and is a bad character of Police Station Chandni Mahal. The Status Report further shows that the petitioner was granted interim bail in the year 1999 for four weeks, but he did not surrender back on expiry of the 2009:DHC:5460 period of interim bail and was rearrested after three months. The Status Report also shows that the family of the petitioner was not found residing at House No. 2945, Kali Masjid Turakman Gate which the petitioner claims to his local address though his brother Mohd. Yusuf was found residing there in a rented accommodation. Thus, the correct local address of the petitioner is also not ascertainable. Since the petitioner had jumped interim bail and was arrested only after three months of the expiry of the interim bail granted to him, the apprehension of the respondent that if released on bail the petitioner may not surrender back in jail, cannot be said to be unfounded. Taking into consideration the involvement of the petitioner in a number of cases, coupled with the fact that the exact place of residence of his family is not ascertainable, the apprehension becomes stronger.
4. The reasonable probability of the petitioner jumping parole cannot be said to be an irrelevant or extraneous reason for rejecting parole. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the order of the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of parole. No ground is made out for interference with the impugned order. W.P. (Crl.) No. 1636/2009 is dismissed accordingly. V.K.JAIN, J DECEMBER 15, 2009 bg