Pankaj Gupta v. State

$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 944/2016 PANKAJ GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr M.L.Yadav, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms Kamna Vohra, Addl. Standing Counsel (Crl.).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

O R D E R

% 22.03.2016 The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking release of the petitioner on parole in order to enable him to arrange funds for treatment of his mother in a good hospital as well as re-establish social ties with family members and society.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2016 whereby his application for grant of parole on the above-stated ground was rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:- "(i) Adverse police report which states that taken grounds are not genuine. There may be possibility of law and order and the security problem in the area on account of the proposed release on parole can not be ruled out. There will be negative impact on the victim party/witness of the case. The convict may harm the victim and witnesses. The possibility of jumping the parole and threat to the life of the convict and committing similar offences can not be ruled out.

(ii) In the absence of requisite police verification report from concerned police authority of his

native place i.e. from SSP, District Mainpuri, UP, despite several requests.

Further, the convict was on regular bail w.e.f. 20.04.11 to 07.01.14 by the order of Apex Court and he has last availed 04 weeks parole up to 29.04.15 by the order of DHC."

A perusal of the reasons stated in the impugned order reveals that the same are contradictory and without any cogent material. The contradiction is manifest on the face the order itself, inasmuch as, on the one hand, it is stated that there is adverse police report and on the other it is stated that there is absence of requisite police verification.

A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he has undergone incarceration for more than three years and ten months out of the total sentence of seven years imprisonment. He was earlier released on parole and is not stated to have misused the concession granted to him. The overall jail conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory since the inception of his incarceration. It is also revealed that he was on regular bail w.e.f. 20.04.2011 to 07.01.2014 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is not stated to have misused the liberty granted to him.

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, Police Station- Pandav Nagar, Delhi, once a week on every Friday during the period of parole. (2) He shall furnish his mobile telephone number, which he undertakes to keep operational, to the Jail Superintendent as well the concerned SHO.

(3) 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 MARCH 22, 2016 mk