Ved Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 09.01.2023 passed by respondent/State rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of parole, and for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two months.

2. The petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi. By virtue of judgment and order on sentence dated 11.10.2019, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 302/324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in case FIR bearing no. 421/2012 registered at Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. His appeal against conviction i.e. Crl.Appeal No.1427/2019 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2022. In relation to this case, the petitioner has undergone sentence of almost 8 years and 10 months in jail.

3. The petitioner seeks parole for two months to find a suitable advocate and arrange financial resources for filing Special Leave Petition (hereinafter ‘SLP’) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and for re-establishing social ties with society and family members on account of long incarceration.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has been released on interim bail twice by this Court and he had never misused this liberty and had surrendered before the Competent Authority without any delay and no adverse report had been received from the police or competent authority. It is submitted that the conduct of petitioner in last more than 8 years has been satisfactory and he is presently working as ‘Bakery sahayak’ in jail. It is further argued that right of a convict to file SLP against dismissal of criminal appeal is a constitutional right and cannot be denied on erroneous grounds.

5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that petitioner can file SLP from jail itself where free legal aid facility is available. It is also stated that as mentioned in impugned order, petitioner is involved in three criminal cases and there is no guarantee that petitioner will not commit any further offences.

6. The arguments of both the parties have been heard by this Court and material on record has been perused.

7. The instant petition has been filed for releasing the petitioner on parole for a period of two months for filing SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court against dismissal of his criminal appeal against conviction by this Court and also for re-establishing social ties with the family members and society. The grounds for rejection of parole application of petitioner by the respondent are: (i) gravity of offence, (ii) involvement in other criminal cases (iii) availability of legal aid in jail through which SLP can be filed, and (iv) Recent grant of interim bail to petitioner from 15.06.2022 to 09.08.2022.

8. Attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that present petitioner is in judicial custody for almost 8 years and 10 months, excluding remission of 6 months and 13 days. The petitioner is stated to have an old widow mother, wife and two minor children. As per nominal roll, the overall conduct of the petitioner in jail has been satisfactory. It is also informed that petitioner was released on interim bail from 02.02.2021 to 02.04.2021, which was further extended from time to time till 20.11.2021 due to second wave of Covid-19 by this Court. Most recently, the petitioner was released on interim bail by this Court from 15.06.2022 to 09.08.2022. However, it is not the case of respondent that petitioner had not surrendered on time before the jail authorities or had misused the liberty so granted to him.

9. It has been time and again held by Courts that right of a convict to file an SLP against dismissal of his criminal appeal by a High Court is an essential one, and the same cannot be denied on the ground that free legal aid is available in the jail and SLP can be filed from the jail itself. Since the only hope for petitioner would now be from the Hon’ble Apex Court as far as his conviction is concerned, he must be provided with an opportunity to pursue his legal remedy by filing SLP through the counsel of his choice.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition. The petitioner is granted parole for a period of two months, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. ii. The petitioner shall report to the SHO of the local area once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM and shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi during the period of parole. iii. The petitioner shall furnish a telephone/mobile number to the Jail Superintendent as well as SHO of local police station, on which he can he contacted if required. The said telephone number shall be kept active and operational at all the times by the petitioner. iv. Immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent. v. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Jail Superintendent at the time of surrendering. A copy of the SLP shall also be placed on record before this Court. vi. The period of parole shall be counted from the day when the petitioner is released from jail.

11. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

12. A copy of this judgment be forwarded by the Registry to Superintendent, Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi for necessary information, compliance and to be communicated to the petitioner.

13. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MARCH 1, 2023