Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to release the petitioner on parole, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that the Courts had consistently emphasized the convict’s right to file a Special Leave Petition (‘SLP’) to challenge the dismissal of their criminal appeal was a crucial right and this right could not be denied based on the availability of free legal aid in jail and the possibility of filing the SLP from the jail premises. Thus, the Court granted parole to the petitioner for a period of four weeks from the date of his release on the condition that the petitioner should furnish a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of the like amount to the Jail Superintendent’s satisfaction.
Background
In an instant case, the petitioner was arrested in FIR registered under Sections 302 and 304 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘the Arms Act’). Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court, and vide order of sentence dated 08-07-2022, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Further, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the Court.
The petitioner was currently lodges in Central Jail 3, Tihar, Delhi and sought parole on the ground that he wanted to file SLP, assailing the orders and judgments vide which he was convicted and his conviction was upheld. The petitioner also stated that he had preferred an application for grant of parole, however, the same was rejected and the order of rejecting the petitioner’s application was totally arbitrary and had been passed without due application of mind.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that in the present case, the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 21-02-2016, that is for a period of about seven years and nine months. Further, as per the nominal roll, only two punishments had been awarded to the petitioner and the petitioner was also granted interim bail in January, 2017. The Court opined that except these two incidents wherein the punishment was awarded to the petitioner, the nominal roll did not find mention of any misconduct on the petitioner’s part, for the last more than six years. Rather, the nominal roll dated 28-11-2023, mentioned that the petitioner’s jail conduct during last one year was satisfactory.
The Court further opined that Rule 1208 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (‘2018 Rules’) provided filing of SLP before the Supreme Court as one of the grounds for seeking grant of parole. Further, Rule 1210 of the 2018 Rules, prescribed certain criteria to be eligible for release on parole and undoubtedly, the present petitioner fulfilled the said criteria. Therefore, the Court opined that the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner, without appreciating the contents of the nominal roll and the rules for grant of parole under the 2018 Rules.
The Court opined that the Courts had consistently emphasized the convict’s right to file a SLP to challenge the dismissal of their criminal appeal was a crucial right and this right could not be denied based on the availability of free legal aid in jail and the possibility of filing the SLP from the jail premises. The Court opined that considering that the petitioner’s sole recourse for assailing his conviction rested with the Supreme Court, it was important to afford him an opportunity to pursue his legal remedy by filing the SLP.
Thus, the Court granted parole to the petitioner for a period of four weeks from the date of his release on the condition that the petitioner should furnish a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of the like amount to the Jail Superintendent’s satisfaction. The Court directed that the petitioner should report to the Station House Officer (‘SHO’) of the local area once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 am to 11:00 am and should not leave NCT of Delhi during the parole period. Further, the petitioner should furnish a telephone or mobile number, on which he could be contacted by the Jail Superintendent and SHO of the local police station and that telephone number should be kept and operational at all times by the petitioner. The Court further opined that the petitioner should surrender himself before the Jail Superintendent and should furnish a copy of the SLP to the Jail Superintendent at the time of surrendering.
[Vinod Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8460, decided on 22-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Piyush Bhardwaj and Rajat Rajoria Singh, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Jasraj Singh Chhabra and Amit Peswani, Advocates for Nadita Rao, ASC (Criminal) with Inspector Yogendra Kumar, P.S.: Shalimar Bagh.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
