W.P.(CRL) 1021/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1021/2010 Decided on 07.09.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : PRADEEP PILLAI S/O M.V.PILLAI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. L.K.Upadhyay, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia for his release on parole for a period of two months to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court with the help of his family members and for renewing social ties with the members of his family and the society. 2. The petitioner and co-accused Rohit Bhatti, who were convicted in a case, registered as FIR No.442/1998 (SC No. 5/08) with Police station: Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, under Sections 302, 201 & 365 IPC, preferred two separate appeals before this Court, registered as Crl.Appeal No.78/2009 and Crl.Appeal No.225/2009, respectively. However, vide common judgment W.P.(CRL) 1021/2010 Page 2 of 4 dated 13.04.2010, the appeal of the accused Rohit Bhatti was allowed and he was acquitted, but the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and his appeal was dismissed. Since the petitioner wanted to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 13.04.2010 passed by this Court in Cri.Appeal No.78/2009 and renew social ties with the members of his family and the society, he applied to the Government for grant of parole. The said request of the petitioner was however rejected by the respondent on the ground of adverse police report and apprehension of jumping the parole by the petitioner and also that the petitioner would again indulge in same type of offence. Hence, the present petition. 3. Ordinarily, grant of parole is an administrative function of the Government and the Courts do not entertain such a request, if made directly. However, in case, the request made by a convict for parole is turned down by the Government and the said order appears to be based on extraneous and/or irrelevant consideration, the Courts can exercise their discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct grant of parole to a convict. 4. In the present case, a Status Report has been filed by the Joint Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi stating inter alia that the application for grant of parole was received through Superintendent, Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi vide letter dated 21.05.2010 and that, thereafter, reports were called from the concerned police authorities. The SHO/P.S Sarai Rohilla, Delhi vide letter dated 06.05.2010 verified the residential address of the convict and stated that father of the convict may W.P.(CRL) 1021/2010 Page 3 of 4 pursue the filing of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. It is also stated in the letter that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. However, the SHO/P.S Sarai Rohilla, Delhi opposed the parole to the petitioner. The DCP, South District, Delhi vide letter dated 11.05.2010 confirmed the present address of the petitioner and stated that the parents of the petitioner are old and suffering from some ailments and also, that the control of parents over the petitioner does not seem to be proper. Hence, there is every possibility of jumping the parole. On the basis of these reports, the request of the petitioner for grant of parole was rejected by the competent authority vide letter dated 24.06.2010. 5. The request for grant of parole to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the conviction and sentence for a serious offence is a relevant consideration. The petitioner has also expressed a desire to establish social ties with his family members and the society. Such a request is not unreasonable unless the circumstances of the case warrant that the Court takes a different view. 6. In the present case, the latest nominal roll of the petitioner, as submitted on 31.08.2010 shows that against the quantum of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default thereof, simple imprisonment of 2 years, as on 21.08.2010, the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of 3 years, 06 months and 05 days including the period of remission. The current nominal roll also shows that the jail conduct of the petitioner for the past one year, i.e., for the year 2009, is satisfactory. There is no pending case against him. The Jail Superintendent has recommended the petitioner for his good conduct and regular W.P.(CRL) 1021/2010 Page 4 of 4 participation in the Jail Industry activities. A perusal of the police report does not reflect anything adverse to the petitioner and also, that the petitioner has not availed any relief in the nature of interim bail/parole till date. 7. In these circumstances, the present petition is allowed limited to the extent of parole granted to the petitioner for a period of three weeks, from the date of his release, to enable him to engage a lawyer to prefer a SLP in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing his appeal, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two local sureties, one of which shall be the father of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of the trial court. (ii) The petitioner shall report to the SHO of Police Station: Sarojini Nagar once a week on every Sunday at 10:00 AM. (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi during the period of parole. (iv) The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the SLP filed in the Supreme Court to the Superintendent Jail at the time of surrendering. 8. The petition is disposed of. (HIMA KOHLI) SEPTEMBER 07, 2010 JUDGE rkb