Full Text
W.P.(CRL)160/2016
SUNIL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Yogesh Swaroop and Ms.Asha Garg,Advocates.
Through:
SANJAY
Through:
Respondent Mr.Rahul Mehra,St.Counsel forthe State with SI Ramesh Kumar,PS
Sultan Puri.
Petitioner Mr.M.L.Yadav and Mr.Lokesh Chandra,Advocates.
STATE
Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra,St.Counselfor the State with SI Ramesh Kumar,PS
Sultan Puri
05.02.2016
ORDER
1. These two petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who have been convicted in case FIR No.259/2009 under Sections 304-11/307/34 IPC, PS Sultan Puri,praying for grant ofparole for a period ofthree months. JV.F.(Crl)Nos.160&365of2016 Page 1 of[4] 2016:DHC:9089 W.P.rCRL^ 160/2016
2. The petitioner Sunil is seeking parole on the ground oftaking care of his wife who hasto undergo spine surgery.
3. So far as petitioner Sunil in W.P.(Crl.)No.160/2016 is concerned,his nominal roll received from the Jail reveals that he has availed four weeks parole in the recent past i.e. with effect from 04.11.2015 to 02.12.2015. As per Parole/Furlough Guidelines-2010, a minimum period of six months ought to have elapsed from the date of termination of the previous parole/furlough.
4. In the given facts and circumstances,the prayer ofthe Petitioner Sunil for releasing him on parole is hereby rejected. Accordingly W.P.(Crl.) No.160/2016 filed by petitioner Sunil is dismissed.
W.PTCRLI 365/2016
5. The petitioner Sanjay is seeking parole on the ground offiling SLP before the Supreme Court,for repairing his house and for maintaining social ties.
6. So far as petitioner Sanjay in W.P.(Crl.)No.365/2016 is concerned,it has been submitted by Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate that the representation made by the petitioner to the Government ofNCT ofDelhi praying for grant of parole has been rejected by the competent authority vide order NO.F.18/504/2014/HG/166 dated 13.01.2016.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sanjay further submits that in terms ofParole/Furlough Guidelines-2010 issued by the Government ofNational Capital Territory of Delhi, it is open to the Government to consider the applications for grant of parole inter alia on various grounds which also includesthe ground offiling ofa Special Leave Petition beforethe Supreme W.P.(Crl.)Nos.160&365of2016 Page2of[4]:.y CourtofIndia againstajudgmentdelivered bythe High Courteonvicting or upholding the convietion,as the ease may be. He further submitsthatin the present ease also, the Petitioner is seeking parole for filing SLP before the Supreme Court whieh is eovered by ground 9.7, therefore, the present petitioner may be granted parole for the said purpose. The said guideline reads as under:- 9.[7] To pursue the filing ofa Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court ofIndia against ajudgment delivered by the High Courtconvictingor upholdingthe conviction,asthe case may be."
8. Nominal roll ofthe Petitioner Sanjay has also been plaeed on record, perusal ofwhieh shows that the conduct ofthe Petitioner,during the period ofineareeration,has been'Satisfactory'.
9. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted by learned Addl. Standing Counselthat address ofthe petitioner Sanjay has been verified and found to be correct. It has beenfurthersubmitted thatappropriate order may be passed keeping in view Parole/Furlough Guidelines-2010 issued by the GovernmentofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case and the fact that the Petitioner Sanjay is seeking parole for the purpose offiling SLP before the Supreme Court,which is permissible under the guidelines,the prayer for grant ofparole is allowed and the Petitioner Sanjay is granted parole for a period offour weeksfrom the date ofhis release to enable him to file SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent and subjectto the following conditions
(i) During the period ofparole,the Petitioner shall reportto the Duty
(ii) The Petitioner shall keep the SHO,P.S. Sultan Puri, Delhi informed about his place ofresidence in Delhi and his contact numbers i.e. mobile, landline or both. It would be open to the concerned SHO to verify the address andthe contactnumbers and to seek cancellation ofparolein case it is found to be incorrect.
(iii) During the period ofparole,the Petitioner shall remain in Delhi and he shall not cross the border or try to contact the witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
(iv) The Petitioner shall submit proof of filing of the Special Leave
(v) While submitting the bail bond, he will furnish to the Jail
Superintendent the address of the place where he would reside in Delhi during the period ofparole as well as the contactnumbers.
11. It is, however, made clear that on expiry of the parole period, the Petitioner Sanjay shall surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent, who shall submitthe surrender reportto this Court along with the particulars ofthe SLP filed by the Petitioner before the Supreme Court.
12. W.P.(Crl.)No.365/2016 stands allowed in the above terms.
13. The Petitioner be informed through the Jail Superintendent about the order passed. Order dasti.
FEBRUARY 05,2016 'St' p RATIBHA RANI,E W.P.(Crl.)Nos.160&365of2016 Page 4of[4] A-' Y^CtA vuAi ^0 Q-^P' f $-81^ • * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL)365/2016 SANJAY Petitioner Through: Mr.M.L.Yadav,Advocate versus STATE Respondent Through: Mr.RahuI Mehra,St.Counselfor the >. State with SI Ramesh Kumar PS Sultan Puri CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER % 17.02.2016
1. The matter has been put up on an office note pursuant to the communication received from the Jail Superintendent which is to the following effect:- I "In this regard, it is submitted that the said convict has been V/ convicted andserving sentence in two cases FIR No. 191/2003, - ) u/s 376/448IPC,PS Sultanpuri & FIR No.259/2009, u/s 304- ! 11/307/34 IPC, PS Sultan Puri. The two cases were clearly ! reflected in thepetition by the applicantandin the nominalroll submitted by this office, whereas the parole has been granted only in one case under reference."
2. In view ofthe above,it is made clear thatthe Petitioner shall avail the benefit of parole granted herein above in case FIR No.259/2009 under Sections 302/120-B IPC,PS Sultan Puri only if he is on bail in other cases I or is otherwise eligible to be released. "'RATIBHA RANI,J.