Partima v. State
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 592/2016 PARTIMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ankur Sood, Advocate versus STATE ...... Respondent Through Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Crl.) ASI Ishwar Chand, PS Lodhi Colony
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
O R D E R
% 04.03.2016 The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for a direction to the competent authority to release the petitioner on parole on the grounds "to look after her younger son suffering from nervous break down attacks and major spinal problems, he is not able to do the daily routine work and requires proper medical treatment and family support as well as to spend some time with her family and relatives in order to maintain social and family ties".
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15th September, 2015 whereby her application for grant of parole on the above-stated grounds was rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:- "rejected in view of adverse police report which stated that there may be an adverse affect on the victim party/witnesses and law and order situation, if the convict is released on parole. The police has expressed their apprehension that she may jump the parole, if granted. Further, convict has last availed one month parole upto 17.07.2014 by this Govt. and during this year (2015), the convict has also availed 04 weeks furlough including last
availed 02 weeks furlough upto 25.04.2015 by the order of DG(P)."
The reasons ascribed by the competent authority whilst rejecting the petitioner's representation for parole do not inspire confidence. The same are without any cogent material and are contradictory as on one hand, it is stated that the petitioner was enlarged on parole and furlough on earlier occasions without it being concluded that she abused the concession granted to her and simultaneously, it is urged that possibility of jumping parole cannot be ruled out. In my view, this is untenable.
A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that she has already undergone incarceration for nine years and seven months out of the total sentence of life imprisonment awarded to her. The overall jail conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory since the inception of her incarceration. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner has been enlarged on parole and furlough earlier on numerous occasions and is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to her.
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. Furthermore, in the present case, it has been verified that the younger son of the petitioner is suffering from a nervous disorder problem and other serious health issues and therefore, requires constant attention. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in allowing the present writ petition.
Consequently, the petitioner is enlarged on parole for a period of four weeks from the date of her release on her 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:- (i) During the period the petitioner remains out on parole,
she shall report to the SHO, Police Station- Lodhi Colony, once a week on every Monday.
(ii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO of the concerned police station with her mobile telephone number which she undertakes to keep operational. (iii) She shall not leave the jurisdiction of the NCT of Delhi without the prior permission of this Court.
(iv) Lastly, the petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities at the expiry of the period of parole. With the above said directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.
Dasti.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MARCH 04, 2016 sd