VIKRAM YADAV Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying inter alia for grant of parole for a period of three months on the ground that he wants to be present as his parental property is due for mutation between the brothers; secondly, that his parents have seen 2-3 girls for finalizing his marriage and the petitioner wants to be present for the said purpose and lastly, that he wants to renew his social ties with the members of his family.

(2.) Vide order dated 15.07.2010, the Superintendent Jail was directed to furnish the latest nominal roll of the petitioner and indicate his conduct while in custody. The nominal roll is on the record. As per the said nominal roll, sentence of life imprisonment was imposed on the petitioner with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof, simple imprisonment for three months; as on 20.08.2010, the petitioner had undergone sentence for a period of 8 years, 8 months and 1 day with remission earned for a period of 8 months and 5 days. The nominal roll states that the petitioner was granted parole for a period of about 5 weeks, w.e.f. 12.08.2009 to 20.09.2009 by this Court in WP(Crl.)835/2009. The jail conduct of the petitioner is stated to be satisfactory.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the earlier parole sought by the petitioner was to enable him to file a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 29.05.2009 and that the petitioner did not misuse the parole and immediately after the expiry of the period of parole granted to him, he had surrendered himself. She further states that the brother of the petitioner, Shri Krishan Kumar is present in Court and has also filed an affidavit dated 26.08.2010, to the effect that the ancestral property has to be divided amongst the family members and further, that the family has seen 2-3 girls to finalise the matrimony of the petitioner, for which purpose, he is required to meet the girl's family members. On the last date of hearing, Counsel for the petitioner had stated that she did not wish to disclose on the record the details of the girls identified for finalising the matrimony of the petitioner, but would hand over the names of the girl to the Court today. Two names have been indicated on a piece of paper by the counsel for the petitioner. Both of them reside in District Jhajjar, Haryana.