W.P.(Crl.) 1669/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1669/2009 # VINAY @ RAJA ..... Petitioner ! Through: None. versus $ STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent ! Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? : V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order passed by the respondent on 19th August 2009, thereby declining the request of the petitioner for grant of parole, in order to enable him to file Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the following grounds:- 1. Address of the convict could not be verified. 2. The convict can file SLP from jail itself, where free legal aid is available. 2. The petitioner along with his co-accused Mohd. Nooruzzama was convicted under Section 364-A of IPC read with Section 34 thereof. W.P.(Crl.) 1669/2009 Page 2 of 4 The appeal filed by him was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19th January 2007. The petitioner applied for parole vide his request forwarded by Jail Superintendent vide letter dated 23rd January 2009. 3. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the respondent informs that Mohd. Nooruzzama, co-accused of the petitioner, who was granted parole for 45 days by this Court, was required to surrender in Jail in 7th January 2010 on expiry of the term for which parole was granted to him, but he had not surrendered in Jail till 25th January 2010 and has thus jumped the parole granted to him. 4. While deciding WP(Crl.) No.1749/2009 wherein parole was sought to file special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, against an order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, I inter alia observed as under: “6. The request for grant of parole, to file SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against conviction and sentence for a serious offence certainly stands on a stronger footing than the desire to maintain links with the society and to reunite with the family. Hence, ordinarily such requests ought to be allowed unless there are reasonable grounds which warrant taking a different view in a particular case. Such grounds may include: i) A reasonable apprehension, based upon material available with the Government such as the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by him and the other cases if any in which he is involved, that the petitioner, if released on bail may not return back to Jail to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence awarded to him; W.P.(Crl.) 1669/2009 Page 3 of 4 ii) A serious apprehension of breach of law and order or commission of another offence by the petitioner if he comes out on parole; iii) Past conduct of the petitioner such as jumping the bail or parole granted earlier to him; iv) A reasonable possibility of the petitioner trying to intimidate or harm those who have deposed against him or their relatives. It is neither possible nor desirable to exhaustively lay down all such grounds as would justify denial of parole in a particular case. Each case has to be examined by the Government dispassionately and with an open mind, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances.” 5. A perusal of the judgment dated 19th January 2007 would show that the charge against the appellant and his co-accused was that they kidnapped a child about 17 months at that time, in order to compel her parents to pay a ransom of Rs.2,00,000/- to them. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and his co-accused, coupled with the fact that his co-accused, who was granted parole by this Court, has misused the liberty granted to him, by not returning to Jail on expiry of the term of parole, there is a genuine and reasonable apprehension that the petitioner also, if granted parole, may instead of filing Special Leave Petition, jump the parole and may not return back to the Jail to serve the unexpired portion of sentence awarded to him. The apprehension that the request for grant of parole to file Special Leave Petition was not a genuine one, but only an excuse to get out of Jail, finds strength from the fact that though the appeal filed by the W.P.(Crl.) 1669/2009 Page 4 of 4 petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 19th January 2007, he slept over the matter for two years and applied for parole only in January 2009. If the petitioner genuinely wanted to file Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he would have applied to the Government, for parole, soon after dismissal of his appeal or within a reasonable period thereafter. The petitioner having not done so, the apprehension of the respondent that he is not likely to return to Jail cannot be said to be unfounded. 7. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Government. However, in order to ensure that in case the petitioner really wants to file a Special Leave Petition, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is requested to make the services of a competent counsel available to the petitioner, so as to enable him to file Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The fee of the counsel, if not borne by Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, will be borne by the respondent. One copy of this order be sent to Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for information. One copy be sent to the petitioner in Jail through concerned Jail Superintendent. One copy be also given dasti to the learned Addl. Standing Counsel. W.P.(CRL) 1669/2009 stands disposed of. V.K. JAIN, J JANUARY 29, 2010 Ag