Shankar vs State

Siddharth Mridul, J.—The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks release of the petitioner on parole in order to enable him to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP). Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner urges that the order rejecting the application for parole suffers from two infirmities--(a) that the requirement as per Para 11.1 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010, which stipulates that a convict must have served at least one year in prison before applying for parole is contrary to a decision of this Court in Veena v. State; 2010 (4) JCC 2721 : 174 (2010) DLT 702 and (b) that the observation that there is no special occasion or reason for granting parole to the petitioner in order to enable him to engage legal counsel to prefer a SLP before the Supreme Court, is contrary to law laid down in Somesh Gupta Vs. State of the NCT of Delhi, (2010) 1 Crimes 864 .

Notice.

Ms. Charu Dalal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Saleem Ahmed, learned Officiating Standing Counsel (Criminal) accepts notice and has hand over a status report, which is taken on record. From a perusal of the same it is revealed that the petitioner is a permanent resident of House No. 1816, Gali Khatikan, Chowk Shah Mubarak, Sita Ram Bazar, Hauz Qazi, Delhi and his family consists of his wife, two children, his parents and two younger brothers.

It is trite to say that there are number of judicial pronouncements in which it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to parole in order to prosecute proceedings before a higher court. The reasons stated by the Competent Authority to reject the application for parole filed on behalf of the petitioner are completely beyond logic and infringe the rights of the petitioner to prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the dismissal of his appeal, which is the constitutional right of every citizen of the country, including the convict. Denial of parole to the petitioner on the ground that he can engage legal aid counsel and file Special Leave Petition from jail is not appropriate in the given facts and circumstances.

In the circumstances, I do not find any impediment in granting parole to the petitioner to enable him to assail the judgment dated 21.04.2014, whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 224/2010 was dismissed, by preferring a SLP against the said judgment and order. The petitioner is hereby enlarged on parole for a period of one month from the date of his release subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Jail Authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Tihar to communicate the same to the petitioner. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court. Master to counsel for the parties.