W.P.(Crl.) 1824/2009

Page 1 of 5

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(CRL) 1824/2009

Date of Order: January 25, 2010.

TOTA RAM

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv.

versus

STATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Pawan Sharma with Mr. Praveen

Nagar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be

reported in the Digest?

: V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

challenging the order passed on 1.10.2009 by the respondent whereby

request of the petitioner for grant of parole was rejected.

2. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 and 307 IPC

read with Section 34 IPC thereof. The appeal filed by him, being Crl.

Appl. NO.883/2008, was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court

on 16.1.2009. The petitioner applied for parole on the ground that he

2010:DHC:422

W.P.(Crl.) 1824/2009

Page 2 of 5

want to file special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

against the order of the Division Bench of this Court dismissing the

appeal filed by him. The request of the petitioner has been declined

on the following grounds:

1.Adverse police report regarding breach of law & order.

2.The grounds taken by the convict could not be verified.

3. Grant of parole is primarily an executive function and, therefore,

it is for the Government to consider the request made by a convict for

grant of parole and pass appropriate order on it. If, however, it is

shown that the order passed by the Government is based upon

irrelevant considerations or on non-existing facts or is otherwise

unsustainable in law, it is open to this Court, in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash such an

order and direct the release of the convict on parole.

4. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by a

Division Bench of this Court, special leave petition before the

Supreme Court is the last remedy available to him in law to ventilate

his grievance. Hence, his anxiety to engage the best lawyer of his

choice which he can, and to adequately brief him so as to enable him

to effectively present his case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

cannot be disputed and in fact this is to be recognized and

appreciated by the Government.

5. While deciding WP(Crl.) No..1749/2009 wherein parole was sought

2010:DHC:422

W.P.(Crl.) 1824/2009

Page 3 of 5

to file special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

against an order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, I inter

alia observed as under:

“6.

The request for grant of parole, to file SLP before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court against conviction and sentence for a

serious offence certainly stands on a stronger footing than

the desire to maintain links with the society and to reunite

with the family. Hence, ordinarily such requests ought to be

allowed unless there are reasonable grounds which warrant

taking a different view in a particular case. Such grounds

may include:

i) A reasonable apprehension, based upon material

available with the Government such as the circumstances in

which the offence is alleged to have been committed by him

and the other cases if any in which he is involved, that the

petitioner, if released on bail may not return back to Jail to

undergo the remaining portion of the sentence awarded to

him;

ii) A serious apprehension of breach of law and order or

commission of another offence by the petitioner if he comes

out on parole;

iii) Past conduct of the petitioner such as jumping the

bail or parole granted earlier to him;

iv) A reasonable possibility of the petitioner trying to

intimidate or harm those who have deposed against