Vikram Yadav vs State NCT of Delhi

Hima Kohli, J.—The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying inter alia for grant of parole for a period of three months on the ground that he wants to be present as his parental property is due for mutation between the brothers; secondly, that his parents have seen 2-3 girls for finalizing his marriage and the petitioner wants to be present for the said purpose and lastly, that he wants to renew his social ties with the members of his family.

Vide order dated 15.07.2010, the Superintendent Jail was directed to furnish the latest nominal roll of the petitioner and indicate his conduct while in custody. The nominal roll is on the record. As per the said nominal roll, sentence of life imprisonment was imposed on the petitioner with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof, simple imprisonment for three months; as on 20.08.2010, the petitioner had undergone sentence for a period of 8 years, 8 months and 1 day with remission earned for a period of 8 months and 5 days. The nominal roll states that the petitioner was granted parole for a period of about 5 weeks, w.e.f. 12.08.2009 to 20.09.2009 by this Court in WP(Crl.)835/2009. The jail conduct of the petitioner is stated to be satisfactory.

Counsel for the petitioner states that the earlier parole sought by the petitioner was to enable him to file a SLP against the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 29.05.2009 and that the petitioner did not misuse the parole and immediately after the expiry of the period of parole granted to him, he had surrendered himself. She further states that the brother of the petitioner, Shri Krishan Kumar is present in Court and has also filed an affidavit dated 26.08.2010, to the effect that the ancestral property has to be divided amongst the family members and further, that the family has seen 2-3 girls to finalise the matrimony of the petitioner, for which purpose, he is required to meet the girl''s family members. On the last date of hearing, Counsel for the petitioner had stated that she did not wish to disclose on the record the details of the girls identified for finalising the matrimony of the petitioner, but would hand over the names of the girl to the Court today. Two names have been indicated on a piece of paper by the counsel for the petitioner. Both of them reside in District Jhajjar, Haryana.

The parole petition is opposed by the learned ASC for the State, who has filed a status report under index dated 15.07.2010. As per the status report, the agricultural land in the name of the father of the petitioner has already been acquired by the Government vide Award No. 15/2001-02 and hence, there is no question of mutation of the same in favour of the petitioner and his brothers. Insofar as the impugned order of rejection dated 24.05.2010 is concerned, it is reiterated in the status report that an adverse report of the SHO had been received to the effect that the petitioner may disturb the tranquility of the vicinity and that the other associates/gang members of the petitioner have already jumped the parole and are still at large. Counsel for the petitioner responds by submitting that when the petitioner was granted parole on an earlier occasion by this Court, his associates/co-accused had already jumped parole but the petitioner strictly abided by the order of parole and surrendered himself on the due date.

This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

It is an admitted position that the petitioner was granted parole from 12.8.2009 to 20.9.2009 vide order dated 14.7.2009 passed in WP(Crl.) No. 835/2009 to enable him to take steps to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. Immediately upon expiry of the period of parole, the petitioner promptly surrendered himself. The grievance of the respondent that the writ petition is not supported by affidavit of any family members of the petitioner, but one Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the friend of the petitioner stands satisfied in view of an affidavit dated 26.8.2010 of Sh. Krishan Kumar, the brother of the petitioner. The apprehension of the respondent that the petitioner shall jump parole appears to be without any basis. Merely, because the co-accused in the case jumped parole, cannot be a ground for rejecting a request for parole by the petitioner, if made for valid reasons. In any case, as noted above, the co-accused jumped parole prior to the petitioner being granted parole in WP(Crl.) 835/2009, and he surrendered himself immediately on exhausting the period of parole. Furthermore, the respondents have not alleged that the conduct of the petitioner in the past has been such that there can be a reasonable apprehension that he may jump parole.

It has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner is a Government servant and in view of his previous conduct, the likelihood of the petitioner jumping parole is remote. The nominal roll of the petitioner reveals that he has already undergone sentence for a period of 8 years 9 months and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory.

While one of the grounds raised by the petitioner for seeking parole to enable him to be present for mutation of parental property does not seem bonafide as the respondent has filed a status report stating that the property has been acquired by the Government under Award No. 15/2001-02, the other grounds are considered adequate for grant of parole to the petitioner, but for a limited period of one month.

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, parole is granted to the petitioner to enable him to finalise his matrimony and to re-establish his social ties with the members of his family for a period of one week on the following terms and conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two local sureties, one of which shall his father, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain within the National Capital Region of Delhi and shall report to the SHO of Police Station: Badarpur, once a week on every Sunday at 10:00 AM.

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

(iv) 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.