Raj Kumar @Bheema v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The present petition has been filed seeking following prayer: a. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two months;

2. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a grant of two months of parole to find an efficient and experienced lawyer and arrange resources for filing SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the impugned judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 14 years and his request for grant of parole for filing SLP has been rejected wrongly by the concerned authority.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the request for parole has been rejected in accordance with the Parole Rules. It has further been submitted that the accused is involved in the following cases:

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the request for parole has been rejected vide communication dated 25.01.2023 which reproduced as under:

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that therefore, there is no ground to grant the benefit of parole to the petitioner.

7. At the outset, this Court does not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has a constitutional right to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of conviction passed against the petitioner and such right cannot be denied only on the ground of other pending cases against him. The Co-ordinate of this Court in Rakesh v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1346 has inter alia held as under:

8. Similarly, the coordinate bench of this court in Neeraj Bhatt v. State (Govt. Of NCT) of Delhi 2023 SCC OnLine Del 32 has inter alia held as under:

7. The bar in the said rule is not absolute since the competent authority has the discretion, even in such cases, to grant parole, provided there exist special circumstances. Though the special circumstances were to be considered by the competent authority, the impugned order does not refer to the special circumstances and that they were found insufficient for grant of parole, rather it only mentions that the SLP can be filed from the jail itself and that the conduct of the applicant was not satisfactory.

8. In this Court's opinion, the right of a citizen to avail a legal remedy in the final court of country, which may often be the last ray of hope, cannot be denied on such ground.

9. As per Rule 1211 of Delhi Prison Rule, 2018, it clearly mentions that parole in the circumstances mentioned in the said Rule can be granted in the discretion of the competent authority if special circumstances exist for grant of parole. The ground taken by the petitioner for grant of parole in the present case is filing of SLP against the judgment of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 391/2020 which was decided on 04.07.2022 whereby the judgment of conviction dated 05.12.2019 and order on sentence dated 19.12.2019 were upheld. It is the right of a citizen to effectively pursue his legal remedy in the last court of justice in the county by filing SLP through a counsel of his own choice which is a valuable right. This cannot be withheld merely on the basis of his past conduct or on the ground that free legal aid is available and that SLP can be filed from the jail itself. Needless to say, availing his legal remedy in the Apex Court of the country is the right of the petitioner and this Court is not inclined to withdraw the same." (emphasis supplied)

9. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rahul Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) in WP (CRL) 996/2023 vide order dated 12.09.2023 after taking into account, Rakesh (Supra) and Neeraj Bhatt (Supra) inter-alia held that Bar contained in Rule 1211 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 is not absolute and the filing of an SLP constitute a special circumstances in terms of said Rule.