Shakeel Ahmed v. State

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 286/2016 SHAKEEL AHMED ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr Rajesh Mahajan, Addl. Standing Counsel (Crl.).

SI Vikram Singh, PS- Sangam Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

O R D E R

% 29.01.2016 The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking release of the petitioner on parole in order to enable him to renew family and social ties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2015 whereby his application for grant of parole on the above-stated ground was rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:- "rejected in view of adverse police report which states that the taken grounds are not seems to be genuine. There may be an affect on the victim party and witnesses and law & and order situation if convict is released on parole. The threat to the life of convict during the parole can not be ruled out. Police has expressed their apprehension that the convict may jump the parole and commit similar offences.

The requisite police verification report from concerned police authority i.e. SSP Muradabad, UP has not been forwarded by the Prisons Department.

Further as per Nominal Roll convict has last availed 01 month parole upto 05.04.2015 by the order of DHC 03 weeks furlough granted by DG (P) but the same has not been availed till date."

The reasons stated by the competent authority whilst rejecting the petitioner's representation for parole are unsustainable and without any cogent material. The competent authority seems to be oblivious of the circumstance

that the petitioner has been released on parole earlier and is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to him.

A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he has undergone incarceration for over 13 years and 8 months out of the total sentence of life imprisonment. The overall jail conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory since the inception of his incarceration. It is trite to state that a person in long incarceration is entitled to parole in order to re-establish social and family ties and for his mental and physical wellbeing. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present petition. Consequently, the petitioner is enlarged on parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent subject to the following conditions:- (1) The petitioner shall report to SHO of the concerned Police Station in Moradabad (U.P.) once week on every Friday during the period of parole.

(2) He shall furnish his mobile telephone, which he undertakes to keep operational, to the concerned SHO.

(3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station in Moradabad (U.P.) except to surrender before the Jail Authorities. (4) Lastly, the petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.

With the above directions the writ petition is disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent to be communicated to the petitioner.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JANUARY 29, 2016/mk