Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parole/furlough guidelines in Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 October, 2010Matching Fragments
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for directions to the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three months and for quashing of para 11.1 of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was convicted in respect of the offence of criminal misconduct under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of `10,000/-. His conviction was confirmed by the High Court in Crl.A. 454/2009 and the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner is serving his sentence since 03.04.2010. He submitted an application to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for grant of parole, which was denied to him vide order dated 8.7.2010, on the ground that para 11.1 of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010 requires that a convict must have served at least one year's incarceration excluding any period covered by remission and the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the said para. Incidentally, the petitioner was taken into custody on 3.4.2010.
6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he has sought to challenge the constitutional validity of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010 for which, he submits that the matter may be sent to a Division Bench, is turned down as the aforesaid guidelines are only in the nature of administrative guidelines framed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, in consultation with the Delhi Legal Services Authority and under the guidance of the High Court, which are required to be followed in the matters of parole, to regulate the applications and ensure that they are considered in a fair and a transparent manner. There is no such question of the vires of any Statute/Rule/Regulation raised by the petitioner which required the Registry to place this matter before the Division Bench.