Full Text
Translation output
15.
% 18.12.2009
Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Ms. Meera Bhatia, Standing Counsel for the State.
+ W.P. (Crl.) No. 1684/2009
This is a petition for grant of parole in order to enable the petitioner to file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The petitioner was convicted in a case registered under
Section 302/307/193/201/120B of IPC and was convicted vide
% 18.12.2009
Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Ms. Meera Bhatia, Standing Counsel for the State.
+ W.P. (Crl.) No. 1684/2009
This is a petition for grant of parole in order to enable the petitioner to file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The petitioner was convicted in a case registered under
Section 302/307/193/201/120B of IPC and was convicted vide
JUDGMENT
dated 16th October, 2007. His appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 18th September, 2009 thereby maintaining his conviction under Section 302/307 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof.
The request of the parole for grant of parole has been rejected solely on the ground that he had availed interim bail for the period from 25th July, 2009 to 13th August, 2009.
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 is 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.
2009:DHC:5555
The petitioner having been convicted by the Trial Court and his appeal having been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court, Special
Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is his last resort.
Therefore, his anxiety to engage the best lawyer he can and to brief him adequately so as to enable him to present his case effectively before the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be disputed. In fact, all the co-convicts of the petitioner have already been granted parole by different Courts. There is absolutely no ground for denying the similar treatment to the petitioner who is similarly situated. In any case, grant of interim bail during pendency of the appeal cannot be a valid ground for denying parole when the convict wants to file Special
Leave Petition against the order, whereby his conviction has been maintained.
For the reasons given above, impugned order dated 4th December, 2009 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole after one week for a period of one month from the date of his release, subject to the conditions (i) he shall not leave Delhi during the period of parole; (ii) he shall mark his presence in Police Station Connaught Place in the morning of every Sunday;
(iii) he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Trial
Court; (iv) He shall comply with such other conditions as the respondent may decide to impose within one week from today in order to ensure that he does not jump the parole.
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1684/2009 stands disposed of.
Dasti.
V.K.JAIN, J
DECEMBER 18, 2009 bg
The request of the parole for grant of parole has been rejected solely on the ground that he had availed interim bail for the period from 25th July, 2009 to 13th August, 2009.
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 is 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.
2009:DHC:5555
The petitioner having been convicted by the Trial Court and his appeal having been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court, Special
Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is his last resort.
Therefore, his anxiety to engage the best lawyer he can and to brief him adequately so as to enable him to present his case effectively before the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be disputed. In fact, all the co-convicts of the petitioner have already been granted parole by different Courts. There is absolutely no ground for denying the similar treatment to the petitioner who is similarly situated. In any case, grant of interim bail during pendency of the appeal cannot be a valid ground for denying parole when the convict wants to file Special
Leave Petition against the order, whereby his conviction has been maintained.
For the reasons given above, impugned order dated 4th December, 2009 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole after one week for a period of one month from the date of his release, subject to the conditions (i) he shall not leave Delhi during the period of parole; (ii) he shall mark his presence in Police Station Connaught Place in the morning of every Sunday;
(iii) he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Trial
Court; (iv) He shall comply with such other conditions as the respondent may decide to impose within one week from today in order to ensure that he does not jump the parole.
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1684/2009 stands disposed of.
Dasti.
V.K.JAIN, J
DECEMBER 18, 2009 bg