* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 BRIJESH @ GUDDU ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Navin Chawla, Advocate. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Amit Sharma, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN O R D E R % 16.12.2009 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of parole. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC for committing murder of one Ram Naresh Yadav. His appeal against conviction by the trial court having been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 21.4.2009 in Crl.A.230/2007, he wants to file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against that order and wants parole for the purpose of engaging a lawyer of his choice and briefing him in connection therewith. The request of the petitioner for grant of parole was rejected vide order dated 20.7.2009 in view of the adverse Police Report. No other reason was given for declining parole to the petitioner. W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 page 1 of 4 Grant of parole being an executive function, it is for the Government and not for the Court to consider such a request and take appropriate decision on it. If, however, the order passed by the Government is based upon irrelevant consideration or is otherwise not tenable in law, it is open to the Court, in appropriate cases, to quash such an order and direct release of the convict on parole. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court, Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is his last resort. Hence, his anxiety to engage a lawyer of his choice and brief him adequately, so as to enable him to effectively present his case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be disputed. As regards the alleged adverse Police Report, which is the sole ground for rejection of his request for grant of parole, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that as per the information received by them from Oraiya in U.P., though the parents of the petitioner are residing there, the petitioner was involved in a murder case in Delhi where he was working in a factory. The case referred in the Report, received from Oraiya, is the same case in which the petitioner was convicted by Delhi Court and his appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.4. 2009. W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 page 2 of 4 This is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is involved in any other case or he is a desperate criminal who is likely to jump parole. It has been verified by the respondent that the parents of the petitioner are residing in Mohalla Govind Nagar, behind Dal Mill in District Oraiya of U.P. and, therefore, they have a fixed place of residence. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court would show that the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed murder of deceased Ram Naresh Yadav when he intervened in a quarrel of the petitioner with another person. Keeping in view the circumstances in which the murder is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, coupled with the fact that his parents have a fixed place of residence, I see no reasonable apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice and not returning back to the jail on completion of parole. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole after one week for a period of one month from the date of his release, subject to the conditions that (i) he will not visit any other place except his native place in Oraiya, U.P., during the period of parole; (ii) he shall mark his presence either in Police Station Oraiya or in Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, in the morning of every Sunday; (iii) he shall furnish a personal bond in the W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 page 3 of 4 sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of trial court; (iv) He shall comply with such other conditions as the respondent may impose within one week from today in order to ensure that he does not jump the parole. W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 stands disposed of. One copy of this order be sent to the petitioner through Jail Superintendent and one copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the respondent. V.K. JAIN,J DECEMBER 16, 2009 ‘sn’ W.P.(CRL) 1270/2009 page 4 of 4