Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Rajiv @ Bobby vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 February, 2022

Author: Chandra Dhari Singh

Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh

                          $~18
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(CRL) 98/2022
                                 RAJIV @ BOBBY                                       ..... Petitioner
                                                    Through:     Mr. Ghanshyam Kaushik, Advocate

                                                    versus

                                 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI                               ..... Respondent
                                              Through:           Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC (Crl.) with
                                                                 Ms. Shivani Sharma and Ms. Surabhi
                                                                 Katyal, Advocates and SI Karan
                                                                 Singh, P.S. Lodhi Colony.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
                                         ORDER

% 16.02.2022

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Respondent to release the Petitioner on parole for a period of six weeks.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is serving life imprisonment in Central Jail and has remained in incarceration for a period of 9 years. It is also submitted that the Petitioner was roped in the FIR bearing No. 253/1995 registered at PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi for offences under Sections 302/396/397/398/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Ld. Trial Court acquitted the Petitioner, however, the Hon'ble High Court convicted him vide its judgement dated 23rd September 2015.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:22.02.2022 16:30:37

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is seeking parole for a period of six weeks since during his confinement in the prison, the wife and children of the petitioner have gone missing and their whereabouts are not known to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel, on instructions, further submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed upon him and would not misuse the liberty in the wake of grant of parole and will surrender before the Jail Authorities after expiry of the period of parole.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the said petition and submitted that there are serious objections as to the Petitioner's overall conduct. It is submitted that previously, the petitioner jumped the parole granted for 20th March 2017 to 20th April 2017 and was re-arrested on 8th May 2017. On a second occasion, when he was granted parole for 28 th March 2018 to 18th April 2018, he jumped the parole again and was re- arrested on 7th August 2018. In light of the aforesaid, there are high chances that the parole might be jumped again if granted.

6. As regards the whereabout of the relatives of the Petitioner, learned APP reiterated the contents of the Status Report and stated that on 11th February 2022, the house of petitioner/accused Rajiv @ Bobby R/o A- 328, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi was visited, where his brother Mr. Amit Hansraj S/o Sh. Babu Lai R/o A-328, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi was present. He was enquired about the wife and children of petitioner/accused Rajiv @ Bobby. During enquiry he told that Smt Rajni W/o Rajiv @ Bobby and her children have not been living in the above said address for the last 4 years. He further stated that he does not know the whereabouts Smt. Rajni and her children. A Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:22.02.2022 16:30:37 neighbor namely Amit Kumar S/o Sh Om Prakash R/o A-332, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi was enquired about the family of accused Rajiv @ Bobby, he stated that he has not seen the wife and children of accused Rajiv @ Bobby for the last 4 years.

7. Heard learned counsels and perused the record including the Status Report, and Nominal Roll.

8. The rationale behind parole is to enable a convict to re-establish his social ties in the community and his family and reintegrate himself in the society, and hence to maintain his social and familial obligations and responsibilities as well as maintain contact with the society outside the prison. Parole is usually a reward for good conduct during the time period of the serving if sentence by the convict. Since, the Prisons Act, 1894, does not make a specific provision for parole and furlough, each State has the power to formulate guidelines on parole and furlough. The Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, together form the basis of guidelines of parole in the territorial jurisdiction of State of the Delhi.

9. As per the latest Nominal Roll, the petitioner has availed parole on three occasions - first, parole w.e.f. 11th April 2016 to 9th May 2016, second, parole w.e.f. 20th March 2017 to 20th April 2017 and third, parole w.e.f. 28th March 2018 to 18th April 2018. The petitioner is seeking parole in the instant case for finding the whereabouts of the relatives, whereas as per the Status Report, his wife and her children have not been living in the above said address for the last four years. Further, the petitioner has jumped parole on two occasions and was re-arrested. The same fact was hidden by the petitioner and was only revealed by the learned APP during the course of arguments. The petitioner having not come before this Court with clean Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:22.02.2022 16:30:37 hands, does not merit the invocation of the discretion of the Court. There is also no sufficient cause in the opinion of this Court to enlarge the petitioner on parole. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition.

10. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J FEBRUARY 16, 2022 Aj/@k Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:22.02.2022 16:30:37