The court established that past parole violations and serious criminal history justify the denial of future parole requests, emphasizing public safety and adherence to prison rules.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J.

1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order No. F.18/321/2013/HG/77 dated 14.01.2022 passed by the respondent and for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three months.

1.1. The petitioner has stated that he is a life convict and presently serving his sentence awarded by the Ld. Trial Court in FIR No. 15/2008, PS Jama Masjid U/s 302/34 IPC. He was convicted vide judgment dated 26.02.2011 by the learned Trial Court and was sentenced to undergo RI for life imprisonment.

1.2. In an appeal preferred by the present petitioner before this Court, being appeal No. 337/2011, vide order dated 07.10.2013 conviction of the present petitioner was converted from Section 302 IPC to 304-I IPC and he was directed to undergo RI for 8 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default SI for 6 months.

1.3. After serving the said sentence he was released from jail. The complainant moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of the High Court in Crl. A. No. 337/2011 and Supreme Court vide order dated 05.05.2017 set aside the judgment of the High Court of Delhi and reinstated the judgment of learned Trial Court and petitioner was directed to surrender for serving the life sentence awarded to him.

1.4. The present petitioner surrendered on 26.06.2019. He has already undergone total incarceration about 10 years. The petitioner had applied for grant of parole on 12.11.2021 to maintain social ties and family relations and to curb inner stress and depression, which was arbitrarily rejected by respondent on 14.01.2022 by citing stereotype grounds that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the earlier parole; petitioner is a desperate criminal and listed bad character in Police Station Jama Masjid and there is every apprehension that he will jump the parole.

1.5. The grounds on which the impugned order has been challenged are that the rejection order is contrary to the basic tenets of law; the Competent Authority failed to appreciate that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration of about 10 years; the conduct of the petitioner has been uniformly good for about 2= years; petitioner was not aware about the Supreme Court order directing the petitioner to surrender for serving the sentence of life imprisonment and as soon as he came to know about the said order, he immediately surrendered before the Court and the delay in surrendering was not intentional; the petitioner has been awarded Certificate of Recognition dated 26.01.2022 in respect of his good conduct and supportive approach; petitioner is a married man having a wife and two minor children and one daughter was born just after he had surrendered in the jail.

1.6. Further grounds put forward for grant of parole are that the relevant authorities failed to consider that the purpose of incarceration is reformation and rehabilitation of petitioner; under the similar circumstance, this Court in W.P.(Crl.) 2209/2020 vide order dated 15.01.2021 had been pleased to allow the parole application; even in the past many other convicts who were similarly circumstanced, have been enlarge on parole and the petitioner is entitled to equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India; the Supreme Court as well as the High Court in number of cases have held that the convicts are entitled to be released on parole for one month twice in a year for their physical and mental well-being; the purpose of incarceration is not retributive but to reform and rehabilitate the convict; the petitioner has been undergoing his sentence honestly and diligently and he is working as a carpenter in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi.