Full Text
#9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21.04.2016
MALKIT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate
Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Crl.) with Ms. Parul Jamwal, Advocate
SI Sukhbir Singh, PS Adarsh Nagar
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for a direction to the official respondent to release the petitioner on parole for three months in order to enable him to institute a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; to arrange funds for the same; and to re-connect social ties with the family and society. 2016:DHC:3083-DB
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17th February, 2016 whereby his representation for parole on the above grounds was rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:- “rejected in view of adverse police report which stated that there is every likelihood that release of convict on parole may breach tranquility and disturb the law and order in the area and disturb the family members of the victim and a fear will be created. The police authority has expressed their apprehension that convict may jump the parole and commit similar offences. Further, the convict, if desires, can file SLP from jail itself where free legal aid is available to prisoners.”
3. The reasons ascribed by the competent authority whilst rejecting the petitioner’s representation for parole in the order impugned herein, are without any cogent material and are untenable.
4. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that at the time when petitioner was enlarged on bail during trial, he is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to him or extended any threats to the complainant in the subject case.
5. It is trite to state that there are number of judicial pronouncements in which it has been held that it is the constitutional right of every convict to be released on parole in order to prosecute proceedings before a higher court.
6. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present writ petition.
7. In the circumstances, since the petitioner wants to assail the judgment and order dated 22nd May, 2015, whereby his appeal being Crl. Appeal NO. 633/2014 has been rejected by this Court, by preferring an SLP against the said judgment and order, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar subject to the following conditions:-
(i) That during the period the petitioner remains out on parole, he shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, once a week on every Wednesday.
(ii) The petitioner shall provide the Superintendent,
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital
(iv) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the jail authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.
8. With the above directions, the present writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for necessary compliance and communication of the same to the petitioner.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J APRIL 21, 2016 sd