Delhi High Court
Shyam Dev Yadav vs State (N.C.T.) Of Delhi on 15 March, 2010
Author: V.K. Jain
Bench: V.K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(Crl.) No. 1294/2009
% Date of Order: 15th March, 2010
# SHYAM DEV YADAV ..... Appellant
! Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv.
versus
$ STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP
* CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
: V.K. JAIN, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 15th September, 2009 whereby parole has been denied to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was convicted in the case registered vide FIR No. 198/2000 under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife. The appeal filed by the petitioner, being WP(Crl.)No. 1294/09 Page 1 of 7 Crl.A.No.51/2007 is dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 25.9.2009. The petitioner intends to prefer Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, whereby his appeal was dismissed.
3. Grant of parole is primarily an executive function and, therefore, it is for the Government to consider the request made by a convict for grant of parole and pass appropriate order on it. If, however, it is shown that the order passed by the Government is based upon irrelevant considerations or on non-existing facts or is otherwise unsustainable in law, it is open to this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash such an order and direct the release of the convict on parole.
4. A perusal of the parole order dated 15.5.2009 whereby parole was denied to the petitioner would show that his request was rejected on the following two grounds:-
(i) Adverse police report from DCP, North District, Delhi regarding law & order in the area.
(ii) The convict can file SLP from jail itself, where free legal aid is available.
5. While deciding WP(Crl.) No..1749/2009 wherein parole was sought to file special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against an order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, I inter alia observed as under:
WP(Crl.)No. 1294/09 Page 2 of 7
"The request for grant of parole, to file SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against conviction and sentence for a serious offence certainly stands on a stronger footing than the desire to maintain links with the society and to reunite with the family. Hence, ordinarily such requests ought to be allowed unless there are reasonable grounds which warrant taking a different view in a particular case. Such grounds may include:
i) A reasonable apprehension, based upon material available with the Government such as the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by him and the other cases if any in which he is involved, that the petitioner, if released on bail may not return back to Jail to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence awarded to him;
ii) A serious apprehension of breach of law and order or commission of another offence by the petitioner if he comes out on parole;
iii) Past conduct of the petitioner such as jumping the bail or parole granted earlier to him;
iv) A reasonable possibility of the petitioner trying to intimidate or harm those who have deposed against him or their relatives.
It is neither possible nor desirable to exhaustively lay down all such grounds as would justify denial of parole in a particular case. Each case has to be examined by the Government dispassionately and with an open mind, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances.
6. As regard the first ground, the adverse Police Report is the communication dated 3.7.2009 from the Deputy Commissioner of Police to the Deputy Secretary (Home), Home(General) Department. It has been stated in the communication that the jhuggi at Yamuna pusta where the petitioner was earlier residing has been demolished and the address of the family members of the petitioner is not known. It has been further stated in the WP(Crl.)No. 1294/09 Page 3 of 7 communication that the petitioner is serving life imprisonment in a heinous crime and there is possibility of breach of peace in case he is released on parole.
7. The appeal filed by the petitioner having being dismissed by Division Bench of this Court, Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the last resort which he can have in order to prove the innocence which he claims. Therefore, anxiety of the petitioner to engage a counsel of his choice and to brief him fully and adequately in order to enable him to present his case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, effectively and to his complete satisfaction cannot be disputed and needs to be appreciated.
8. I fail to appreciate how there can be any law and order problem merely on account of the petitioner being released on parole. Admittedly, there has been no complaint against the petitioner during the period of more than nine years which he spent in jail. Admittedly, the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Hence, the apprehension of the respondent regarding breach of law and order in the event of his being released on parole seems to be entirely misconceived.
9. As regards address of the petitioner though he has no place of residence in Delhi, in jail it has been verified that his WP(Crl.)No. 1294/09 Page 4 of 7 mother Smt. Beena is residing in village Balurghat, Collectry
- Ghat Para District West Dinaz Pur West Bengal where she is living with another son Ramdev and his family at Jhuggi PWD Land. Ram Dev is running a tea-stall and selling eatables. A person cannot be denied parole for the purpose of filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court merely because he does not have any place of residence in Delhi. A person residing outside Delhi has the same right to file Special Leave Petition as a person living in Delhi. Hence, the ground given by the respondent for denying parole to the petitioner are untenable and unjustified in law.
10. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order whereby parole was declined to the petitioner is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of one month, from the date of his release, after two weeks from today, subject to the following conditions:-
i. He shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
ii. He shall not visit any place other than Delhi and his native place village Balurghat, Collectry - Ghat Para District West Dinaz Pur West Bengal, during the period he remains WP(Crl.)No. 1294/09 Page 5 of 7 on parole.
iii. He shall supply a copy of the Special Leave Petition filed by him to the concerned SHO within 24 hours of his being released from Jail.
iv. He shall mark his presence in Police Station Kotwali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, or in Police Station within jurisdiction of which his native place falls, at 10:00 A.M. on every Sunday.
v. Within 24 hours of his being released from Jail, the petitioner would inform SHO Police Station Kotwali about his temporary place in Delhi where he will be staying in connection the Special Leave Petition which he propose to file before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. vi. While leaving Delhi for his native village, the petitioner will inform SHO Police Station Kotwali and while leaving for Delhi, he will inform SHO having jurisdiction on his native village and will give the address of the place where he will be staying. Similar report will be given by him on his arrival in Delhi/village, as the case may be. WP(Crl.)No. 1294/09 Page 6 of 7 vii. He shall comply with such other conditions as the Government may decide to impose within one week from today, in order to ensure that he does not escape, while on parole.
W.P.(Crl) No. 1294/2009 stands disposed of.
V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) MARCH 15, 2010 'sn' WP(Crl.)No. 1294/09 Page 7 of 7