W.P.(CRL)/828/2017 of MD.SHAKIL @ BHOLA Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(CRL) 828/2017

MD.SHAKIL @ BHOLA

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms.Neha Kapoor, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counselwith Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Adv.

S.I.Pawan Kumar, P.S. IGI Airport

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R19.09.2017

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2017 passed by thecompetent authority whereby his prayer for being released on parole hasbeen rejected on the ground of adverse police report; assumption that thepetitioner may jump parole and also for his unsatisfactory jail conduct. Thepetitioner was punished on 17.4.2017 for jail offence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of thisCourt to the nominal roll which indicates that he has been in jail for morethan 12 years and if remission is counted, the period of custody would bearound 14 years. It has also been pointed out that right from 2015 onwards,the petitioner has been granted parole and furlough by the orders of thecompetent authority and during such period, nothing adverse was reportedagainst him.

No doubt, it is true that the petitioner was punished on two occasions

in the past and for one occasion this year, that is, on 13.4.2017, but noadverse report was reported during the period that he was on furlough andparole.

This Court has also taken note of the fact that even after thepunishment given to him in the year 2011 and 2012, the competent authoritygranted furlough and parole to him in the past.

The reason assigned by the petitioner for being released on parole isthat he has to take care of his father, who was, at that time, in criticalcondition and was admitted in ICU.Though much time has elapsedthereafter, but then, if the father of the petitioner is old and had been ill, itwould be necessary that someone takes care of him at least for some time.

The address of the petitioner has been verified.

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to grant paroleto the petitioner for period of three weeks.

The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for period of threeweeks, to be counted from the date of his release, on his furnishing bond inthe sum of Rs.12,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfactionof the Superintendent of the concerned jail.

The petitioner shall, however, abide by the conditions listed below:-

a) The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities on orbefore the expiry of the said period of parole.before the expiry of the said period of parole.

b) The petitioner shall not engage himself in any unlawful activity.

c) The petitioner would not leave, under any circumstance, theNational Capital Region of Delhi, without intimating the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station.National Capital Region of Delhi, without intimating the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station.

d) He shall furnish his and his sureties’ mobile telephone numbers tothe SHO of the concerned police station so that in case of necessityhe could be tracked and his whereabouts could be ascertained.the SHO of the concerned police station so that in case of necessityhe could be tracked and his whereabouts could be ascertained.

In case, the petitioner flouts any one of the conditions enumeratedabove, an application could be moved by the concerned SHO forcancellation of his parole and for taking of coercive steps for securing hisattendance.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

The order be communicated to the Superintendent of the concernedjail for compliance and record.

Dasti.

SEPTEMBER 19, 2017Bisht

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J