Jamil vs State of The NCT of Delhi and Another

Hima Kohli, J.—The present petition is filed by the Petitioner praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 8.7.2010 passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, observing that the Petitioner is not eligible to apply to GNCT of Delhi for grant of parole in terms of para 11.2 of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines issued by the GNCT of Delhi on 17.2.2010, where under there is a requirement that the conduct of the convict in prison must have been uniformly good.

On the last date of hearing, in view of the statement made by the counsel for the Petitioner that the rejection order has been passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, whereas the application made by the Petitioner for grant of parole was submitted to the GNCT of Delhi, learned ASC for the State was directed to file a status report.

A status report is handed over by the learned ASC for the State and the same is taken on the record. As per the status report, vide letter dated 17.2.2010, the Deputy Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi had issued directions that before processing an application of the convict for grant of parole/furlough, the Superintendent Jail would assess the eligibility of the convict as per the guidelines and forward only such of the application which are covered under the guidelines. In view of the aforesaid position, the argument of the Petitioner that the Superintendent Jail could not have passed any orders on the parole application of the Petitioner is turned down.

Counsel for the Petitioner states that even otherwise, the observation made in the impugned order that the conduct of the Petitioner has not been uniformly good, is misconceived, as the basis of the punishment awarded to the Petitioner on 12.8.2010, of stopping his mulakat for a period of one month, was an oral argument with the jail officials. He states that the aforesaid mis-conduct is not of such a serious nature as to deprive the Petitioner of his right to seek parole and that too for the purpose of tiling a SLP in the Supreme Court. He further submits that even in cases pertaining to murder after rape, though parole is ordinarily not granted under the new guidelines, courts have granted parole to the convict for filing SLP against his conviction.

The nominal roll of the Petitioner dated 27.7.2010 shows that as against the quantum of sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for five months, the Petitioner has already undergone sentence of 7 years and 28 days as on 27.7.2010. The remission earned by the Petitioner is for a period of 9 months 11 days.

Having regard to the fact that the parole is sought by the Petitioner for filing a SLP in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 3.5.2010, passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the Petitioner in FIR No. 272/2003 under Sections 302/394/34 IPC, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on parole for a period of one month, on the following terms and conditions:

(i) The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the jail authority.

(ii) The Petitioner shall mark his presence before the SHO of PS Darya Ganj 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) Immediately upon the expiry of period of parole, the Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Jail Superintendent.

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

A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the Petitioner.