PRADEEP PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia for his release on parole for a period of two months to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court with the help of his family members and for renewing social ties with the members of his family and the society.

(2.) The petitioner and co-accused Rohit Bhatti, who were convicted in a case, registered as FIR No.442/1998 (SC No. 5/08) with Police station: Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, under Sections 302, 201 & 365 IPC, preferred two separate appeals before this Court, registered as Crl.Appeal No.78/2009 and Crl.Appeal No.225/2009, respectively. However, vide common judgment dated 13.04.2010, the appeal of the accused Rohit Bhatti was allowed and he was acquitted, but the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and his appeal was dismissed. Since the petitioner wanted to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 13.04.2010 passed by this Court in Cri.Appeal No.78/2009 and renew social ties with the members of his family and the society, he applied to the Government for grant of parole. The said request of the petitioner was however rejected by the respondent on the ground of adverse police report and apprehension of jumping the parole by the petitioner and also that the petitioner would again indulge in same type of offence. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Ordinarily, grant of parole is an administrative function of the Government and the Courts do not entertain such a request, if made directly. However, in case, the request made by a convict for parole is turned down by the Government and the said order appears to be based on extraneous and/or irrelevant consideration, the Courts can exercise their discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct grant of parole to a convict.