SIDDHARATHA VASHISHTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner, a life convict in Jessica Lal Murder case, has challenged the order dated 21.10.2011, passed by the respondent, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of parole for a period of three months. The request for parole, although recommended by the Jail authorities was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner had earlier violated the terms and conditions of the parole.

(2.) Mr.Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole by the respondent was totally arbitrary, irrational and without any merits. It was also contended by him that the petitioner had been consistently maintaining good conduct for which he had been issued commendation certificates by the Jail authorities. It was urged that the respondent itself has framed the guidelines for the grant of parole, which have been notified vide order dated 17.02.10, in terms of which parole can be granted in case there is marriage of a family member of the convict and with a view to enhance the continuity with the family members and to develop a positive attitude and interest in life. It was further contended by Mr.Jethmalani that vide circular, dated 26.07.11, it was also clarified by the respondent that while dealing with the application for grant of parole or furlough in terms of the guidelines of 2010, the conduct of a convict for the last one year is only relevant.

(3.) In this context, it was urged by the learned senior counsel that the denial of parole to the petitioner on the ground that on the previous occasion, when parole was granted to the petitioner, he was found in a nightclub was irrelevant because it travels beyond the period of one year as specified by the guidelines of the respondent. Apart from this, it was contended that the petitioner was granted parole not only for performing the religious rituals of his departed grand-mother, but also to maintain social ties and to attend to his neglected business, wherein it was specified that his ordinary place of residence was at House No.226, Sec-9, Chandigarh. It is contended that it did not prohibit the petitioner from visiting Delhi or any restaurant or club which the respondent is claiming to be a nightclub to transact the business. It was also urged by Mr.Jethmalani that there was no negative covenant in the terms and conditions of grant of the earlier parole that prohibited the petitioner from visiting the discotheques or nightclubs.