Delhi High Court - Orders
Hopeson Ningshen vs The State on 23 June, 2020
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 887/2020
HOPESON NINGSHEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kahorngam Zimik,
Mr.Gaichangpou, Gangmei,
Mr.Yashvir Kumar, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 23.06.2020
1. The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
2. This writ petition is filed for grant of writ of mandamus and for regular parole and to direct the respondent to dispose of the regular parole application who is lodged in Central Jail, Mandoli being convicted in FIR Nos. RCIMPH200950002 and RCIMPH200950003.
3. The learned Special Judge (PC) Act in its judgment and order of sentence dated 31.05.2014 and 30.06.2014 respectively has awarded to the petitioner, life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offences under Section 120 B, 364, 302 IPC and further RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 392 IPC.
4. The first appeal bearing No. 1131/2014 was filed before this Court and was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2019. In the wake of order dated 20.11.2019 the petitioner had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court.
5. The petitioner applied for grant of parole on the ground to maintain social ties etc. Through the jail authorities it was forwarded and dispatched to Dimapur, Nagaland for verification of the address. However, no decision on the application was received by the petitioner. A reminder dated 27.12.2019 was also sent. It is alleged the requisite report from the concerned police station was also received by the jail authorities, yet no confirmation/information was received by the petitioner and hence the petitioner filed W.P.(Crl.) 422/2020.
6. The nominal roll were submitted before this Court mentioned he has already undergone 10 years and 8 months. The order dated 12.02.2020 in W.P.(Crl.) 422/2020 was as under:
"In view of the above, this Court consider it apposite to direct the concerned authority to decide the petitioner's application as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three weeks from today and communicate the same to the Petitioner."
7. It is argued yet again the said application was never decided in time nor was communicated to the petitioner, hence, the petitioner was constrainted to file his petition with following prayers:
"a) Issue a Writ/Order/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to release the Petitioner, presently lodged in Central Jail, Mandoli, Delhi being convicted and sentenced in case arising out of FIR Nos.RCIMPH200950002 RCIMPH200950003 dated 02.04.2009 registered by CBI/ACB Imphal, on regular parole to pursue the Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to maintain social ties, relations and to curb inner stress and depression caused due to prolong incarceration; and/or
b) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
8. The status report is filed on behalf of the State relying upon a judgment passed in Vikas Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2016) SCC Online Delhi 3123 which notes:
"14. The foregoing discussion leaves no manner of doubt that when a challenge against the sentence awarded to the petitioner is pending determination before the Supreme Court in a criminal appeal, the power of the executive to consider a representation for parole made by the petitioner is eclipsed and cannot, therefore, be exercised.
15. Consequently, in view of the pendency of a criminal appeal instituted on behalf of the petitioner assailing the sentence awarded to him by the courts below, before the Supreme Court, the official respondent could not have entertained a representation for parole on his behalf in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.M. Nanavati (supra). Accordingly, the present petition assailing the order passed by the competent authority rejecting the representation on behalf of the petitioner for grant of parole and seeking a direction to the official respondent to release the petitioner on parole, is also not maintainable, and is hereby dismissed whilst reserving liberty to the petitioner to institute an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."
9. Admittedly, the leave to appeal has now since has been granted by the Supreme Court per order dated 15.06.2020.
10. In view of the leave being allowed the prayer sought for cannot be granted but the petitioner has raised a valid issue viz. per Furlough and Parole Guidelines, such applications need to be decided within four weeks then why such long time was taken in this case. It has been noted similar writs are also being filed where similar prayers are been made despite the relevant rule being as under:
"1217. The Government shall decide the application for parole within 4 (four) weeks. The decision will be communicated to the Superintendent of Jail, who in turn will communicate the same to the prisoner/ convict. In addition, the Superintendent of Jail will ensure that a copy of the order is served on the convict/prisoner."
11. The learned Standing Counsel for the State to file a reply a) qua the time taken in deciding such application; b) why there was delay, if any, in disposing of this application and c) why the order was never communicated to petitioner herein in time.
12. List on 02.09.2020.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
JUNE 23, 2020/M/DU