Delhi High Court - Orders
Pilluwa @ Pappu vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 21 December, 2020
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1780/2020
PILLUWA @ PAPPU ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Adv.
versus
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
(Crl.) for State along with Mr.
Chaitanya Gosain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 21.12.2020 [Hearing held through videoconferencing] Crl. M. A. No.17671/2020
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
Crl. M. A. No.17670/20203. The petitioner has filed the present application seeking modification of the order dated 02.11.2020 seeking waiver of the condition that requires him to remain in Delhi.
4. The above captioned petition was filed by the applicant for parole for a period of eight weeks. However, the same was allowed for four weeks. This was subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain in Delhi Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL and would furnish an address in Delhi where he will reside once he is released from jail.
5. In terms of Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the petitioner was not entitled to any parole except in circumstances where the competent authority finds that there are special circumstances for grant of such parole. Since the petitioner was convicted for raping his daughter and committing an offence punishable under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 is applicable. Notwithstanding the above, this court had directed that parole be granted because the petitioner desired to be released to file a SLP before the Supreme Court.
6. Considering that the petitioner was serving the sentence of raping his daughter, this Court had also imposed a condition that the petitioner would not reside at the address where his daughter was residing and would confine himself to Delhi.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner resides in a village in Bulandshehar. The petitioner also submits that he has no address in Delhi and would be required to go back to his village in Bulandshehar.
8. This Court had also noted that the petitioner wanted parole on the ground he wants to file an S.L.P. in the Supreme Court, and therefore, it would not be necessary for him to travel outside Delhi. Clearly, there would be very limited facilities available to the petitioner to file an S.L.P., in a village in Bulandshahar, U.P.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that since Bulandshahar is barely 100 kilometres from Delhi, the petitioner would commute from Bulandshahar to Delhi to file an S.L.P. Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL
10. Plainly, it would not be apposite to permit to release the petitioner on parole in order to enable him to go to the village where the victim resides. It is not necessary for the petitioner to go to Bulandshahar to file an S.L.P. in the Supreme Court.
11. In view of the above, this Court does not consider it apposite to modify the order dated 02.11.2020. However, it is clarified that the Jail Authorities shall provide the necessary facilities to the petitioner to file an S.L.P. through jail.
12. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 21, 2020 dr Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL