Full Text
W.P.(CRL) 2759/2015
AJAY SINGH CHAUTALA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Sahni and Mr.Dhruv
Sheoran, Advocates.
Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra, St.Counsel for the State with Mr.Amrit Singh, Mr.Shekhar Budakoti and Mr.Jamal
Akhtar, Advocates with SI Suneel Siddhu, PS Parliament Street.
Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Special PP for CBI.
CM PRAKASH CHAUTALA
Through:
Sharma, Mr.Amit Sahni and Mr.Dhruv Sheoran, Advocates.
THE STATE (GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra, St.Counsel forthe State with Mr.Amrit Singh, Mr.Shekhar Budakoti and Mr.Jamal
Akhtar, Advocates with SI Suneel Siddhu, PS Parliament Street.
Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Special PP for CBI. W.P.(Crl.) Nos.2759 & 2638 of2015 Page 1 of8
2016:DHC:9077
ORDER o/o 01.02.2016 W.P.rCrU No.2759/2015
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner Ajay Singh Chautala has initially filed the present petition praying for grant ofparole for a period oftwelve weeks to enable himto gettreatment aswellto maintain social ties.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, Crl.M.A. No.950/2016 has been filed by the petitioner for placing on record additional documents i.e. marriage card of Ms.Vidisha —niece (daughter of Mrs.Manju D/o Late Sh.Pratap Chautala - uncle ofthe petitioner) and Mr. Kunal Karan - nephew (son ofMrs.Anjali - sister ofthe petitioner) to bring on record the factum of two marriages in the family and to seek parole on this additional ground. Crl.M.A No.950/2016 has been allowed vide order dated 19.01.2016.
3. Since as per Parole/Furlough Guidelines-2010 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, if there are more than one convict in a case, who are lodged in the same prison, the co-accused convicts cannot be released simultaneously. Today W.P.(Crl.) No.2638/2015 filed by Om Prakash Chautala, who is father of present petitioner Ajay Singh Chautala and also a co-conviet in the same FIR bearing RC No.3(A)/04/CC No.37/10 ACU-IX New Delhi under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 418/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, PS CBI is also listed at Serial No.73. Option was given to the petitioners Ajay Singh Chautala and Om Prakash Chautala as to which writ petitiontheywantto press first. fF.F.(Crl.) Nos.2759 &2638 of2015 Page 2of[8]
4. Mr.Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Advocate for petitionerAjay Singh Chautala after some deliberation, on instructions, submits that let the writ petition filed by Om Prakash Chautala seeking parole may be considered by this Court at this stage and writ petition filed by petitioner Ajay Singh Chautala may be adjourned.
5. In view of above submissions made on behalf of petitioner Ajay Singh, Chautala, W.P.(Crl.) No.2759/2015 be listed on 4"^ April, 2016. W.P.fCrU No.2759/2015
1. The instant writ petition bearing W.P.(Crl.) No.2759/2015 has been filed by the petitioner Om Prakash Chautala with a prayer to grant him parole for a period ofsixty days on the ground ofgetting medical treatment as well as for maintaining social ties.
2. During the pendency of this writ petition, Crl.M.A. No.948/2016 has been filed by the petitioner Om Prakash Chautala raising additional ground to seek parole i.e. marriage of his grand-daughter Ms.Vidisha, who is daughter of Mrs.Manju, D/o Late Sh. Pratap Chautala, real brother of petitioner Om Prakash Chautala, to be solemnised on 17^ February, 2016, as well as marriage of his real grandson namely Mr.Kunal Karan, son of Mrs.Anjala D/o Om Prakash Chautala to be solemnised on 25"" February,
2016. Crl.M.A. No.948/2016 has been allowed vide order dated 19.01.2016.
3. Perusal of the nominal roll of the petitioner discloses his overall jail conduct as well as jail conduct during last one year to be 'Satisfactory'. However, in column No.18 i.e. Report ofmisconduct (if any) during interim bail/parole/furlough, it is mentioned that the petitioner has surrendered late on 03.06.2015 (by five days) after availing the parole w.e.f. 13.05.2015 to 29.05.2015. W.P.(Crl.) Nos.2759 &2638 of2015 Page 3of[8]
4. In view of the above eonduct of the petitioner Om Prakash Chautala as mentioned in Column No.18 of the nominal roll, reason for delay in surrender has been asked from learned counsel for the petitioner. He seeks time to place on recordthe necessary documents.
5. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter be taken up in the post lunch session. *RATIBHA RANI, J. FEBRUARY 01, 2016 'st'
2.30 pm Present: Mr.R.K.Anand, Mr.Chetan Anand, Mr.Adesh Srivastava, Ms.Shuchi Sharma, Mr.Amit Sahni and Mr.Dhruv Sheoran and Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocates. Mr.Rahul Mehra, St.Counsel for the State with Mr.Amrit Singh, Mr.Shekhar Budakoti and Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Advocates with SI Suneel Siddhu, PS Parliament Street. Ms.RajdipaBehura, SpecialPP for CBI.
1. Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner has filed his affidavit alongwith medical record of the petitioner Om Prakash Chautala from Medanta Hospital to show that during the period the petitioner defaulted in surrendering before the Jail Superintendent, hewas hospitalised and this fact was communicated by him to the concerned Jail Authorities and there was no deliberate delay insurrendering after the expiry ofperiod ofparole.
2. I have heard Mr.R.K.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, JV.F.(Crl.) Nos.2759 &2638 of2015 Page 4of[8] Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for Government of NCT of Delhi and Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Special PP for CBL' Submissions made on behalf of petitioner Om Prakash Chautala
3. Mr.R.K.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Government ofNCT ofDelhi whereby the prayer ofthe petitioner to be released on parole was rejected on the ground that minimum period of six months has not elapsed from the date of termination of previous parole. Mr.R.K.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench ofthis Court in W.P.(Crl.) No.2601/2015 whereby in similar circumstances while considering the request for grant of parole it was noted that the contention that six months have not elapsed from the date oftermination ofprevious parole has become infructuous as period ofsix months has expired by the time the petition had come up for hearing.
4. It has been urged before this Court that the factum of marriages of Ms.Vidisha - grand-daughter and Mr.Kunal Karan - grandson of the petitioner has been verified. There was only one misconduct attributed to the petitioner which has been duly explained by placing on record the affidavit of Mr,Anil Rathee, Advocate alongwith discharge summary of Medanta Hospital showing that petitioner was hospitalised at that time, Thus, to enable the petitioner to undergo treatment as well as to connect social ties and attend the marriages ofhis grand-daughter and grandson and other marriage related ceremonies, prayer made in the petition may be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier also the petitioner has been granted parole and he did not misuse the liberty. W.F.(Crl) Nos.2759 &2638 of2015 ^o/S Submissions made on behalf of State/Government of NCT of Delhi
5. Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that the case against the petitioner was investigated by CBI, hence CBI being a necessary party to this petition may file its response.
6. Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that though the factum of both the marriages has been verified but the way the wedding programmes have been scheduled, as mentioned in paras 6 and 7 of the application, the petitionercan be granted custody parole to attend the function which he wants to attend in connection with the marriage of his real grand-son KunalKaran. However, so far as marriage of Ms.Vidisha - grand-daughter of his brother is concerned, her family is organising the function and presence ofpetitioner is not necessary. Submission made on behalf of CBI
7. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned Special PP for CBI has appeared just to apprise this Court that it is for the State to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner for release on parole and CBI has become fucntus officio in the matterafterthe casehas beenfinally disposed of by the Supreme Court. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learnedSpecialPP for CBI has further submitted that CBI is not a necessary party to this petition and this fact is well within the knowledge of Government ofNCT ofDelhi.
8. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned Special PP for CBI has placed on record the copy of the order dated 02.09.2015 passed in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1691/2015, which was filed by one of the co-accused/co-convict namely Abhilash Kaur in the same case in which the present petitioner was convicted, seeking parole for her medical treatment. In that case also, CBI was added as a party and notice was issued to the CBI. Pursuant to that, sheappeared in W.P.(Crl.) Nos.2759 & 2638 of2015 Page 6 of[8] W.P.(Crl.) No.1691/2015 and made submissions which have been recorded by the Court as under;- 'Letit be noted that thepetitioner waspermitted to add CBIas a party respondent and was also directed to furnish an amendedmemo ofparties. Notice was issued to CBI. Pursuant to such a notice, Ms.Rajdipa Behura, SPP has appeared and has submitted that theparole, custody andjail affairs are State subjects. After the investigation of the case, the CBI becomes functus officio, and therefore it would not be in a position to comment upon or provide any assistance to Courtwith respect to grant ofparole after the hierarchy of Courts have closed their doors on theface ofthepetition.'
9. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned Special PP for CBI has submitted that in view ofthe submissions already recorded in W.P.(Crl.) No.1691/2015 notice need not be issued to CBI whenever any petition seeking parole is filed by any ofthe convicts in this case.
10. 1 have considered the submissions made on behalf ofthe parties.
11. The contention raised on behalf of State that petitionercan be granted custody parole to enable him to attend the marriage of his real grandson Mr.Kunal Karan and his prayer for grant of parole may be declined, is not based on any material which may disentitle the petitioner Om Prakash Chautala to bereleased onparole. It is necessary to note here that faetum of marriage of granddaughter and grandson of the petitioner stands verified. The medical condition of the petitioner is also not disputed. The SLP filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Supreme Court giving liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court in ease of any physical ailment or need of medical treatment. To reconnect social ties is another ground available to the petitonerto seekparole.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances ofthe ease, submissions W.P.(Crl.) Nos.2759 &2638 of2015 Page 7of[8] made on behalf of the parties as well as the grounds for which the petitioner Om Prakash Chautala is seeking parole i.e. to attend marriage of his real grand-son and grand-daughter of his real brother as well as to get medical treatment, the prayer for grant of parole is allowed to the extent that the petitioner is granted parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of? 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Since the petitioner Om Prakash Chautala is permanent resident of
District Sirsa, Haryana, he shall keep the Jail Superintendent informed about his place of residence during the period of parole and his contact numbers i.e. mobile, landline or both.
(ii) The petitioner shall not try to contact or influence the complainant/witnesses.
13. It is made clear that this four weeks parole is to be availed by the petitioner for his treatment as well as to maintain family and social ties.
14. W.P.(Crl.) No.2638/2015 standsallowed in the aboveterms.
15. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and compliance. As prayed, copy ofthe order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. >RATIBHA RANI, J. FEBRUARY 01, 2016 'st' W.P.(Crl.) Nos.2759 &2638 of2015 Page 8of[8]