Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Puran Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 January, 2022

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta

                              $~25
                              *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              +      W.P.(CRL) 1978/2021


                                     PURAN SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner
                                              Represented by:        Mr Siddharth Yadav, Advocate.

                                                        versus

                                     STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                            ..... Respondent
                                              Represented by:        Ms Sumedha Singh, Advocate for
                                                                     Mr Ranbir Singh Kundu, ASC for
                                                                     the State.

                                     CORAM:
                                     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                                             ORDER

% 24.01.2022 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. By this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 3rd September, 2021 passed by the competent authority and the order of dated 5th January, 2021 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, North District, Rohini, Delhi and seeks parole/emergency parole for a period of eight weeks.

2. Since, as per the nominal roll, the petitioner was granted emergency parole after the filing of this petition and during the said period another FIR being FIR No.350/2020 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner at PS Bhalswa Dairy, thus, in this petition the petitioner confined his prayer to the order granting punishment and the appraisal thereto as Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL.) 1978/2021 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:27.01.2022 13:36:18 noted in the order dated 12th October, 2021. Vide order dated 3rd September, 2021, the competent authority rejected the parole application of the petitioner in terms of Rule 1210 sub-rule II and IV of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 as under:

"II:- The conduct of the Prisoner who has bene awarded major punishment for any prison offence should have been uniformly good for last two years from the date of application and the conduct of Prisoner who has been awarded minor punishment or no punishment for any prison offence in prison should have been uniformly good for last one year from the date of application.". In this case, the convict is having Punishment dated 20.08.2020 (Approved by Distt. & Sessions Judge) which is a major punishment in view of Rule 1271 of DPR-2018"

3. In the appraisal submitted the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge noted that the petitioner was granted eight weeks emergency parole vide order dated 31st March, 2020 with the condition that he will maintain peace during the said period, however, on 6th June, 2020, he involved himself in FIR No.350/2020 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act registered at PS Bhalswa Dairy, thus in view of the violation of the Prison Rules, the punishment of stoppage of ICS and canteen facility for a period of one month and forfeiture of the surety and deposit of the amount of the personal bond as also that the period of emergency parole shall not be counted towards imprisonment was awarded.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of appraisal of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge upholding Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL.) 1978/2021 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:27.01.2022 13:36:18 the punishment awarded would amount to double jeopardy as an order on sentence in FIR No.350/2020 would be passed on conviction and this order could not have been passed as the petitioner is yet to be convicted under FIR No.350/2020 and there is presumption of innocence of the petitioner till he is convicted. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is ex facie not tenable. The petitioner is facing trial in FIR No.350/2020 under Section 307/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act PS Bhalswa Dairy and after the trial in case it is proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the petitioner has committed the offence he would be convicted in terms of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as per the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, which is independent of the violation of the petitioner of the terms of the emergency parole granted to him for the reason the emergency parole was granted on the condition that the petitioner will maintain peace and the Personal Bond and the Surety Bond in this regard was taken. Since the petitioner violated the terms of the emergency parole, the consequential order of forfeiture of the Surety Bond and the Personal Bond and the period of parole not being treated as having undergone imprisonment as also the stoppage of the phone facility and the canteen facility is commensurate to the misconduct of the petitioner. At the stage of appraisal, the court is required to see whether the petitioner had misconducted in terms of the Delhi Prison Rules based on the prima facie material before it and is not required to wait for the full-fledged trial in the FIR registered.

5. Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J JANUARY 24, 2022/MK Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL.) 1978/2021 Page 4 of 4 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:27.01.2022 13:36:18