Delhi High Court - Orders
Vivek Kumar Sharma @ Billu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 September, 2020
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
via Video-conferencing
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL.) 1169/2020
VIVEK KUMAR SHARMA
@ BILLU .....Petitioner
Through : Ms. Dolly Raj Bahadur,
Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 30.09.2020 The petitioner, who is a convict undergoing life sentence in case arising from FIR No. 901/2011 registered under sections 302/307/148/149/323/324/34 IPC at PS : Krishna Nagar, in which case Crl. Appeal bearing No. 709/2018 also stands dismissed by this court vidé order dated 30.11.2018, seeks parole.
2. Notice in this petition was issued on 31.07.2020.
3. Status report dated 14.08.2020 has been filed.
4. Nominal roll dated 15.08.2020 has also been received from the Jail Superintendent.
5. Ms. Dolly Raj Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than W.P.(CRL.) No. 1169/2020 Page 1 of 5 09 years and has availed parole only once in the year 2019, for two weeks from 13.08.2019 to 28.08.2019, whereafter he surrendered on time and there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted.
6. One of the reasons the petitioner had sought parole was to look after his daughter, who is aged about 09 years; and who, it was submitted, has been left destitute after the demise of the petitioner's mother on 13.10.2019, who used to look after the minor girl, since the petitioner's wife is already separated from him.
7. It was also submitted that the petitioner's application for grant of emergency parole on the ground of the prevailing coronavirus pandemic had been rejected by the jail administration on the ground that the petitioner was found guilty of a prison offence and was awarded punishment on 02.01.2020.
8. In status report dated 14.08.2020, it is recorded that though the petitioner's family does not live at the Gandhi Nagar address furnished in the writ petition, they reside at an address in Dayalpur, Delhi which stands verified. It was further said in the status report that though the demise of the petitioner's mother stands verified, the petitioner's minor daughter is well taken care of and lives with the extended family, which inter alia comprises his brother Vipin Sharma, who is also a co-convict presently on parole in the same case.
9. Nominal roll dated 15.08.2020 shows that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 09 years; that he works as 'Vodafone Sahayak' in prison; that though his overall jail conduct is stated to be 'unsatisfactory' and prison punishments have been awarded to him, it is seen that the petitioner's prison offences are misbehaviour with the W.P.(CRL.) No. 1169/2020 Page 2 of 5 staff and recovery of mobile phones and SIM cards, for which he has already been awarded and has suffered requisite prison punishment.
10. The nominal roll further shows that of the 05 co-convicts, 03 have already been released after undergoing their respective sentences; whereas 02 co-convicts, by name Vipin Sharma and Gaurav Sharma, are both out on parole. It is stated that Vipin Sharma and the petitioner are cousin brothers.
11. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the said co- convicts were granted parole earlier-on and would have surrendered to custody by now, by reason of extension of interim orders, including orders of parole, by operation of orders dated 13.07.2020, 24.07.2020 and 24.08.2020 made by a Full Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No. 3037/2020 titled Court on its own Motion vs. State & Ors., the parole of the said co-convicts stands extended till 31.10.2020.
12. On the other hand however, Ms. Bahadur submits that the petitioner has not got the benefit of parole after August 2019.
13. Ms. Kamna Vohra, learned ASC for the State submits that Rule 1212 (2) of the Delhi Prison Rules 2018 stipulates that simultaneous parole to co-convicts is ordinarily not permissible, save in exceptional circumstances; though it is further stipulated that the competent authority may grant simultaneous parole in exceptional circumstances to co-convicts who are family members.
14. What weighs with the court in the present case is firstly, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than 09 years; secondly, that though certain prison offences were committed by the petitioner, requisite punishments were awarded to the petitioner, W.P.(CRL.) No. 1169/2020 Page 3 of 5 which the petitioner has suffered and the prison offences have therefore already been atoned for; and thirdly, that while 02 co- convicts are availing the privilege of parole, which even stands extended until 31.10.2020, for that very reason, it appears Rule 1212 (2) stands in the way of petitioner being granted parole.
15. Upon a conspectus of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this court is persuaded to grant to the petitioner parole for a period of 04 (four) weeks from the date of his release, subject to the following conditions. :
(a) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with 01 surety in the like amount from a family member, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent;
(b) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Delhi without permission of the court and shall ordinarily reside at the Dayalpur, Delhi address as verified in the status report;
(c) The petitioner shall present himself before the SHO, PS :
Krishna Nagar, every Monday between 11 am and 11:30 am to mark his presence. However, he will not be kept waiting for longer than one hour for this purpose;
(d) The petitioner shall furnish to the SHO a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times;
(e) The petitioner shall not indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful;W.P.(CRL.) No. 1169/2020 Page 4 of 5
(f) Upon expiry of the period of parole, the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent.
16. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
18. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 j W.P.(CRL.) No. 1169/2020 Page 5 of 5