* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1670/2009 RAJKUMAR @ LINDER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V. Madhukar and Mr. Paritosh Anil, Advs. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC with SI Onkar Singh, P.S. Vivek Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN O R D E R % 21.12.2009 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 31st July, 2009, whereby the parole was denied to the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted in a case under Sections 392/394/397 of the IPC and his Appeal was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 28th April, 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 426/2006. He has sought grant of parole in order to file Special Leave Petition against the order of this Court dismissing his appeal and also to renew social ties with the family members and the society. W.P.(CRL) 1670/2009 Page 1 of 4 The application of the petitioner, for grant of parole, was rejected vide order dated 31st July, 2009 on the following grounds: 1. Adverse police report regarding breach of law & order. 2. The convict can file SLP from Jail itself, where free legal aid is available. Since the order passed by the respondent did not specify what exactly was the adverse police report, referred in the order, the respondent was directed to produce adverse police report, pursuant to which parole was denied to the petitioner. The status report would show that the petitioner is a History Sheeter of Police Station Vivek Vihar since 28th February, 1998 and has been involved in 16 different cases in Delhi and U.P. A list of the cases, filed by the respondent, would show that he has been acquitted in a number of them. He was, however, convicted in a case under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act. He is also facing trial in a case under Sections 398/401 of IPC and two cases under Arms Act. During the course of enquiry on the application of the petitioner for grant of parole, police recorded the statement of the mother of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner expressed desire that he should not come out of the Jail till he undergoes the sentence awarded to him, as she apprehends that he might commit breach of peace if he comes out of the Jail and may trouble them. SI Onkar Singh of Police W.P.(CRL) 1670/2009 Page 2 of 4 Station Vivek Vihar, who is present in the Court, states that the neighbours had only verbally told him that the petitioner should not come out of the Jail as they are terrified of him and are not willing to go on record against him. Considering the involvement of the petitioner in a number of cases, including that he is still facing trial in three cases, including a case of dacoity, there is a reasonable apprehension that if granted parole, the petitioner may not return to Jail to undergo the remaining portion of sentence awarded to him. If there is a reasonable apprehension of the convict jumping the parole and his request for grant of parole is declined on that ground, the order of the respondent, rejecting parole, in these circumstances cannot be said to be based on irrelevant consideration or on extraneous material and no fault can be found with such an order. However, in order to ensure that the petitioner does not suffer on account of rejection of parole, the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is requested to make available services of a competent counsel for the purpose of filing Special Leave Petition on his behalf. The respondent shall provide adequate opportunity of interview with the petitioner to the counsel either in person or through video conferencing, whatever mode the counsel desires. Fee and other charges of the counsel, unless borne by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, W.P.(CRL) 1670/2009 Page 3 of 4 will be borne by the respondent. With these directions, W.P.(CRL) 1670/2009 stands disposed of. One copy of this order be sent to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for information and necessary action. One copy of order be sent to the petitioner though Jail Superintendent. V.K. JAIN, J DECEMBER 21, 2009 Ag W.P.(CRL) 1670/2009 Page 4 of 4