Court upheld the denial of parole based on unsatisfactory jail conduct and rules governing parole eligibility, reaffirming that a history of parole violations and familial capability can outweigh reasons for release.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking issuance of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks for maintaining social ties and for the medical treatment of his mother.

2. It has been submitted that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 367/377/304/34 IPC vide judgement dated 01.02.2017 and further sentenced vide order dated 21.02.2017 to undergo RI for life and fine.

2.1. When the petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 483/2017, the sentence awarded to him for offences under Section 377 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside. The petitioner has undergone about 8 years and 11 months of actual custody.

2.2. The petitioner moved an application for grant of parole, which was rejected vide communication dated 10.01.2022 for the reason that the overall jail conduct and last one year jail conduct of the petitioner are reported to be unsatisfactory. The convict had jumped the earlier parole and he was re-arrested on 12.02.2020. As per the petitioner, main ground for applying for parole has been overlooked by the authorities as his mother is about 65 years old; she has met with an accident in the year 2014 where she got grievously injured and she is mostly confined to bed. The father of the petitioner due to his old age is unable to look after the petitioner's mother and she is not getting proper medical treatment and the release of petitioner is needed for looking after his mother.

2.3. The petitioner had already availed two paroles in the year 2018 and 2019 and the present rejection of parole is against the principles of natural justice.

2.4. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and he is a permanent resident at the address given in the title of the petition. He belongs to a poor family and he wants to maintain social ties. He undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed upon him.

3. Notice was issued. Status report has been filed. Arguments heard.

4. Nominal roll is on record which shows that till now, the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of 10 years under Section 367/34 IPC and now he is undergoing RI for life awarded under Section 302/34 IPC. The nominal roll further shows that his jail conduct for the last one year as well as his overall jail conduct, both are unsatisfactory.

4.1. Even when he was granted parole in the year 2018 and 2019 on both these occasions, he had jumped parole.

4.2. In 2018, he surrendered nine days late after expiry of the date of parole whereas when he was released on 09.12.2019 and the parole was to expire on 07.01.2020, he never surrendered and rather he was re-arrested on 12.02.2020.

4.3. The status report shows that the mother of the petitioner had suffered an accident in the year 2019 and she got injuries on her right leg. She was earlier getting treatment from Swami Dayanand Hospital, Shahadara Delhi and now she is getting herself treated at Jag Parvesh Hospital, Shastri Park Delhi

4.4. Two other surviving brothers of the present petitioner are living in the same premiss but separately and both of them are taking care of their mother. The father of the petitioner is stated to be an alcohol addict and he is living separately in the same premises. The mother of the petitioner wants him to return home.

4.5. On the other hand, two brothers of petitioner, staying in the same premises have stated that they are capable of and are taking proper care of their mother. They do not want the present petitioner to be released from jail as he creates problems after his release and he may jump parole and every time he is released on parole, at the time of surrender, he never wants to go back to jail.

4.6. The relevant part of the rejection order dated 10.01.2022 is reproduced here under:

"The convict is not entitled for parole in view of Rule 1210 sub rule (II) & (IV)