Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1558 (DEL)

Sanjay Arora v. State of the NCT of Delhi

2013-08-21

HIMA KOHLI

body2013
JUDGMENT Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 18.2.2013 passed by the Deputy Director (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi rejecting his application for being released on parole and for directions to the respondent/State to release him on parole for a period of three months. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had approached the/respondent/Govt. of NCT of Delhi for being released on parole on the ground of providing medical treatment to his physically challenged mother and for restoring social ties, but the said application was turned down. 2. A status report has been filed by the State, wherein it has been stated that on inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner's mother is aged about 60 years and is having a deformity by birth in her left leg. However, no medical documents were furnished by the petitioner's mother in this regard. It is further stated that the younger brother of the petitioner and his family are available to look after the mother. 3. Learned ASC for the State refers to the provision of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010, particularly, Guideline No. 12.5(a), to submit that where a prisoner like the petitioner herein is convicted for murder after rape, ordinarily, parole would not be granted to him except, if in the discretion of the competent authority, special circumstances exist for grant of parole. 4. Counsel for the petitioner states that it appears that for rejecting his prayer for grant of parole, the State has been influenced by the nature of the sentence awarded to the petitioner and it has proceeded to take into consideration the magnitude of the crime committed by him, which is impermissible and has been so held in the case of Shakuntala Devi Vs. State reported as 1996 (36) DRJ (DB) 545. State reported as 1996 (36) DRJ (DB) 545. He submits that the aforesaid consideration ought not to have weighed with the State for the purpose of grant of parole to the petitioner for the reason that even if he has been indicted for the aforesaid offence, fact remains that certain residuary fundamental rights remain vested in the petitioner and those cannot be completely discarded because he is well entitled to restore his social ties with the family, more so when he has remained incarcerated for almost 14 years and has earned remission for a period of 31/2 years. 5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties. As per the nominal roll of the petitioner, against the quantum of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine, SI for a period of twenty one days, as on 5.3.2013, the petitioner had undergone sentence for a period of about thirteen and a half years. Column 15 of the nominal roll reveals that the jail conduct of the petitioner for the past one year has remained satisfactory and further, there has been no report of misconduct during the period of interim bail/parole granted to him. Column 16 of the nominal roll containing the details of the interim bail/parole availed of by the petitioner, reveals that in the past, the court had granted him parole on four occasions in the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. Admittedly, the petitioner has not misused the liberty granted to him and had surrendered on expiry of the period of parole on each occasion. 6. The Court finds force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the nature of the sentence or the magnitude of the crime committed by a prisoner is not a relevant consideration for the purpose of examining a case of grant of parole. At that stage, the Court must examine other aspects including the fact as to whether the petitioner is involved in other criminal cases, his conduct during the period of incarceration and whether he has misused the benefit of parole/furlough granted to him on earlier occasions. At that stage, the Court must examine other aspects including the fact as to whether the petitioner is involved in other criminal cases, his conduct during the period of incarceration and whether he has misused the benefit of parole/furlough granted to him on earlier occasions. When the prisoner demonstrates a sense of responsibility and reliability during the period of his imprisonment, then parole is only a positive step in the direction of reintegrating him in the society and permitting him to let off his steam once out in the open, so that he can ultimately be rehabilitated at the end of the sentence undergone. This line of thinking has found voice in a number of decisions over the past years, including in the case of Poonam Lata Vs. M.L. Wadhawan reported as (1987) 3 SCC 347 . 7. As observed in the case of Shakuntala Devi ("supra"), the focus of interest in penology is the individual and the goal is salvaging him for society. Time and again the Supreme Court has held that all aspects of criminal justice fall under the umbrella of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Further the courts have sought to humanise prison administration to some extent through various pronouncements and much emphasis has been laid on the right of a prisoner to the integrity of his physical person and mental personality. The Courts have viewed sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality keeping in mind the fact that the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a measure of social defence. In this context, reference may be made to the decisions in the case of Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration reported as AIR 1980 SC 1579 and Rakesh Kaushik Vs. State reported as AIR 1981 SC 1767 . 8. In view of the length of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, who has an unblemished record of conduct in that duration, there is no good reason for declining his request for parole more so when admittedly he has been granted parole on four earlier occasions and as per the record available, he has not misused the said indulgence. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking at the past conduct of the petitioner, the present petition is allowed. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking at the past conduct of the petitioner, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks, on the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. (ii) The petitioner shall mark his presence before the SHO of Police Station: Malviya Nagar, Delhi at 10:00 AM on every Sunday and during the period of parole, he shall not leave Delhi. (iii) 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, (iv) The petitioner shall keep away from the area around the residence of the victim and her family members, (v) Immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the petitioner shall surrender himself before the Jail Superintendent, (vi) 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 the order be forwarded directly to the Jail Superintendent, for information.