W.P.(CRL)/2546/2022 of RAJIV @ MONU Vs STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(CRL) 2546/2022

RAJIV @ MONU ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate. versus versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for State with Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocate and SI Ankur, PS: Mundka. Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocate and SI Ankur, PS: Mundka.

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R R09.05.2024

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Rajiv @ Monu S/o Sh. Randhawa under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Respondent, whereby the application of the petitioner for parole was rejected. Petitioner was convicted on 15.12.2016 in case FIR No. 190/2013 under Sections 365/302/201/120B/34 IPC registered at PS: Mundka and has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner is presently lodged in Tihar Jail, Delhi. Petitioner had applied for parole for 2 months in order to take care of his twin daughters and to re-establish social ties on account of continuous long incarceration, which request was rejected by the impugned order.

2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Petitioner is blessed with twin daughters and one of them aged 3 years, is suffering from serious kidney ailment. Applicant is required to take her for medical treatment and

W.P.(CRL) 2546/2022 Page 1 of 4

also arrange for finances and therefore, he be released on parole for two months. It is contended that the ground for rejection of parole is completely erroneous since this Court has repeatedly held that only for the reason that convict has jumped parole or committed crime while on parole and had to be re-arrested, he cannot be denied parole for remaining part of the sentence, if release is otherwise warranted in the facts of the case.

3.Status/verification report has been filed on behalf of the State in which it is stated that the medical documents filed along with the application, in support of the medical ailments of one of the daughters of the applicant were verified from Mittal Nursing Home, Model Town, Sonepat, Haryana and have been found to be genuine. During verification, the doctors have informed that the patient is suffering from fever and anemia and was referred to surgeon for kidney problem. Other medical documents have also been verified from Mission Hospital and Medical Research Centre Pvt.

Ltd., Bahadurgarh, Haryana and found to be genuine.

4.Heard.

5.Reading of the impugned order dated 19.09.2022 reflects that the parole application of the Petitioner was rejected in view of Rules 1210 (III) and (IV) of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which provide that during the period of release on parole or furlough, if granted earlier, the convict should not have committed any crime or violated any term and condition of the parole or furlough granted previously. Petitioner was released on emergency parole w.e.f. 15.05.2021 to 13.08.2021, which was extended from time to time but he was re-arrested on 02.12.2021 in another case FIR No.1079/2021 under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 registered at PS: Mundka and is thus ineligible for grant of parole.

W.P.(CRL) 2546/2022 Page 2 of 4

6.The case of the Petitioner is that he has twin daughters and one of them is suffering from serious kidney problem and has been recently diagnosed with ‘fever with non-septic mesenteric lymphadenitis anemia’. Investigating Officer has verified the medical documents appended to the application and they are stated to be genuine. It is confirmed that the girl child is suffering from serious kidney disorder and related medical issues and is under treatment. In these facts, in my view, Petitioner has made out case for grant of parole.

7.Insofar as the reason for rejection of the parole application is concerned, this Court in Sunil v. State, W.P. (Crl.) 2550/2021, decided on 15.03.2022 and Puran Prasad v. State of NCT of Delhi, W.P. (CRL.) 2452/2023, decided on 11.12.2023, has observed that provisions of Rule 1210 (III) and (IV) cannot bar this Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if warranted in particular case. Applicant had allegedly committed an offence when released on emergency parole in the year 2021, but this should not come in the way of his release in the facts that prevail today, where his 3 years old daughter is ill and Applicant is required to be with her, both as care giver as well as for arranging the finances for her medical treatment.

8.In view of these aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on parole for period of four weeks from the date of his release, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent and further subject to following conditions:-

(1)Petitioner shall not leave the country during the period of parole

without prior permission of this Court;

W.P.(CRL) 2546/2022 Page 3 of 4

(2)He shall provide his mobile number to the SHO of local Police Station and shall keep the same active at all times and any change in the mobile number will only be after prior intimation to the SHO concerned; Station and shall keep the same active at all times and any change in the mobile number will only be after prior intimation to the SHO concerned;

(3)He shall not indulge in any criminal activity, directly or indirectly, during the period of parole; and during the period of parole; and

(4)He shall surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent immediately on expiry of the parole period. immediately on expiry of the parole period.

9.Petition stands allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 10.Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance. 10.Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.

MAY 9, 2024/DU/kks

JYOTI SINGH, J

W.P.(CRL) 2546/2022 Page 4 of 4