W.P.(CRL)/42/2017 of ARIF Vs STATE

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 42/2017

Date of Decision: February 02[nd], 2017

ARIF

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Sumeet Verma and Mr.AbhijeetSharma, Advs.

versus

STATE..... RespondentThroughMr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State withASI Tejram, PS Najafgarh.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S. TEJI, J

1.The present petition has been filed under ArticleS 226 & 227of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for theparole for period of three months on the ground to arrange fundsfor and to re-establish social ties with the family and with thesociety. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by theorder dated 10.11.2016.

2.Perusal of order dated 10.11.2016 shows that an applicationfor the grant of parole was moved by the convict/petitioner whichwas rejected. Since this is in continuation of order of the DeputySecretary (Home), the original order was called and notings on thesame were perused.

3.Perusal of noting shows that the parole was availed incontinuity of earlier paragraphs 1 to 7 which deals with the earlierapplication rejecting the parole and present case starts from para 8.

As per the undated application, the parole was sought for periodof three months and the same was forwarded by the Superintendent(Jail) along with nominal roll and crime details of the case. On thebasis of the same, the Deputy Secretary concerned proceeded withthe file on the format. First is the grounds taken by the convict,then there are guidelines, then there are details of the nominal roll,then there is case detail and then there are police reports. There ismentioning of verification of address and grounds taken by theconvict but the same was opposed on the ground that it may disturbthe law and order situation in the area and the convict may threatenthe victim party and the possibility of jumping parole andcommitting similar offence cannot be ruled out. Next paragraphmentions about the period already undergone by the convict whichis 4 years and 8 months. Thereafter it was forwarded by the DeputySecretary (Home) to the Additional Secretary (Home).TheAdditional Secretary (Home) gave the noting “We may not accepthis plea”.

4.Next column is meant for Principal Secretary (Home) andthe next column is meant for the Minister concerned who just puttheir signatures and ultimately as per the noting of the AdditionalSecretary, the parole was rejected.

5.The challenge of the petitioner is that the present rejectionorder vide order dated 10.11.2016 is without any due considerationand application of mind.On the other hand, learned AdditionalStanding Counsel for the State submitted that the guidelinesalready issued are under review and whatever the lapse, the same issubject matter of review and shall be taken into consideration whileframing fresh guidelines.It has been informed that earlier theapplication was moved by the convict was ultimately rejected on

W.P.(Crl).42/2017

10.12.2015 and thereafter the present application was moved. It isfurther submitted that the application for the grant of parole issilent about the rejection of the earlier parole application vide orderdated 10.12.2015 which was never under challenge.

6.From the totality of the material placed before the Court byboth the sides, it appears that the matter has been dealt in casualmanner.The application filed by the convict does not mentionabout the rejection of earlier parole vide order dated 10.12.2015and it is being subjected that the earlier application resulted intorejection order dated 10.11.2016.

7.As discussed above in detail that after the noting by theDeputy Secretary (Home), the remarks were given by theAdditional Secretary (Home). For the purpose of clarification thesame are being repeated”

“We may not accept his plea”.

8.The noting made by the Additional Secretary (Home) doesnot find any basis and ultimately it was the recommendation ofAdditional Secretary (Home) which was accepted.

9.Perusal of record shows that as per the nominal roll of theconvict, his jail conduct was satisfactory and he is maintaining hisbehaviour properly and confining himself with good inmate.Nothing adverse was reported against the convict regardinginvolving in any illegal and anti human activities.

10.After conviction, every applicant is to be treated as aconvict. The sole ground of the charges in which the accused hasbeen convicted cannot be made the ground for rejection of theparole and this Court is of the considered opinion that whateverthe remarks given at any stage by any authority it has to be borneout from the record on the basis of material available and

W.P.(Crl).42/2017

wherever any particular recommendation with regard to grant ornon-grant of parole, that should be reasoned one mentioningthe factual position and reaching to the conclusion on the basisof record only and further that if the higher authorities are toadopt particular view out of two views on the file then they needto give reason for agreeing or disagreeing on particularrecommendation.

11.In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that non-grant of parole order is notsustainable in the present case. The competent authority is directedto pass fresh order as per the observations made above within twoweeks after due application of mind.

12.The present petition is accordingly disposed of.

13.Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent.

FEBRUARY 02, 2017dd

P.S.TEJI, J