Delhi High Court - Orders
Dhuli Chand vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 10 December, 2021
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1062/2020
DHULI CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. S. Lao, Standing Counsel for the
State along with Mr. Karan Jeet Singh
Rai, Advocate
SI Shallu, PS Pandav Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 10.12.2021 CRL.M.As. 10867-68/2021 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 1062/2020 & CRL.M.A. 10866/2021
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:
"a) Grant emergency parole to the Petitioner to meet the medical attention that that the petitioner requires, for maintaining social ties and to take care of the old ailing father of the Petitioner, and self-preservation from COVID-19
b) Issue any such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and oblige."
2. The petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 363/365/366/376 IPC arising out of FIR No. 165/1996 registered at Police Station Trilok Puri, Delhi and has been awarded life sentence. A criminal Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL SINGH W.P.(CRL) 1062/2020 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:13.12.2021 18:02:06 appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 689/2001, against the order of conviction was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2007.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody for more than 19 years now and he has not been granted the benefit of parole since 2017 i.e. for the last four years and, therefore, he should be granted parole. He states that the competent authority has denied parole to the petitioner vide communication dated 16.07.2020 mainly for the reason that the petitioner had jumped furlough in April 2015 and had to be re- arrested and brought back to prison on 16.04.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this alone cannot be a reason to deny parole to the petitioner for all times to come. He states that such an interpretation would be contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He states that the purpose of parole is to re-establish family ties and therefore, the petitioner be released on parole.
4. Mr. Karan Jeet Singh Rai, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel for the State, submits that the petitioner has violated the orders of this Court and in fact he had to be re-arrested. He further states that Police has tried to verify the address of the petitioner, but has not been able to verify the address. He, therefore, states that the petitioner be not released on parole.
5. Material on record shows that the petitioner has been in continuous custody for more than 19 years now, and in the past four years the petitioner has not been granted parole. Even assuming that the petitioner has violated Rule 1211 (III) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the period of penalty would come to an end after two years after the incident and, therefore, that cannot W.P.(CRL) 1062/2020 Page 2 of 3 be an impediment for grant of parole.
6. The Status Report dated 15.10.2021 indicates that the surety of the petitioner, Arif Ali S/o Mohd. Ahmad, resides as N-38, Jhuggi No. B-124, B/T-Huts., CD- Park, Jahangirpuri, Delhi and in case parole is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner would reside with the surety. The Status Report further indicates that when a visit was made to the said address, the surety was not found at the abovementioned address, but his son was present there. Local inquiry also reveals that surety of the petitioner resides at the abovementioned address.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not been granted parole since the past four years and the purpose of parole is to re-establish social ties, this Court is inclined to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of 30 days on the following conditions:
a) The petitioner shall deposit a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The concerned Court is directed to once again verify the address of the surety at the time of accepting the personal bond.
b) The petitioner is directed not to leave NCT of Delhi during the period he is on parole.
8. The petition is disposed, of along with all the pending applications.
9. Let the order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J DECEMBER 10, 2021 Rahul W.P.(CRL) 1062/2020 Page 3 of 3