Lalit Kumar @ Sonu vs State of (NCT) Delhi

Hima Kohli, J.—The present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure praying inter alia for grant of parole for a period of three months to enable him to file a SLP in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 20.9.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Crl. A. No. 711/2009, upholding the judgment of conviction and order on sentence awarded against the Petitioner.

The nominal roll of the Petitioner reveals that against the quantum of sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months, as on 16.8.2010, the Petitioner has undergone sentence for a period of 5 years 3 months and 3 days, and earned remission for a period of 5 months and 17 days, thus leaving unexpired portion of sentence for a period of 4 years 3 months and 10 days. As on date, the remaining period of sentence of the Petitioner would be about 3 years and 8 months, approximately. The nominal roll dated 16.8.2010 of the Petitioner further reveals that his jail conduct for the past one year was unsatisfactory and a punishment was imposed on him on 9.2.2010 by stopping his mulakat for a period of one month.

In the status report filed by the SHO, PS Badarpur, Delhi, it is stated that the reason for rejecting the application for grant of parole filed by the Petitioner, was the fact that his jail conduct had been unsatisfactory for the past one year. As per the status report filed by the Superintendent Jail, it is stated that the Petitioner was punished for committing jail offence of misbehaving and using abusive language with the guard on duty on 9.2.2010.

On the last date of hearing, it was submitted by the Learned ASC for the State that upon inquiry from the parents of the Petitioner, his father Shri Rakesh Gupta had stated that he did not have any control over the Petitioner and he did not wish that the Petitioner visits his house. Today counsel for the Petitioner submits that the mother of the Petitioner is present in Court and she states that her husband is presently not in Delhi. She denies that any such statement was made by her husband in respect of the Petitioner. She hands over a photocopy of his voter identity card to show her identity, which is taken on record. She confirms the fact that in case parole is granted to the Petitioner, she/her husband shall stand as surety for him.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The Petitioner is granted parole for a period of four weeks to enable him to file a SLP, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety of the like amount, which shall be one of his family members, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(ii) The Petitioner shall neither approach the victim or any of her family members or visit the place of their residence during the period of parole.

(iii) The Petitioner shall report to the SHO of PS Badarpur, Delhi, once a week on every Sunday at 10:00 AM and shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi during the period of parole.

(iv) The Petitioner shall furnish a telephone number to the Jail Superintendent on which he can be contacted, if required. After his release, he shall also inform his telephone number to the SHO of the police station concerned.

(v) Immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Jail Superintendent.

(vi) The Petitioner shall furnish a copy of the SLP filed in the Supreme Court to the Superintendent Jail at the time of surrendering and forward a copy to this Court through jail.

(vii) The period of parole shall be counted from the day after the date when the Petitioner is released from jail.

The petition is disposed of.

A copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry forthwith to the Superintendent Jail for information and perusal.