MOHINDER SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking parole for a period of three months on the ground for filing of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to re -establish social ties with family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to file an SLP before the Supreme Court against the order of this Court. Apart from this, the petitioner wants to re -establish social ties with family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not misuse the liberty of parole and the purpose of his getting parole is only to file SLP before Supreme Court. He further submits that in terms of Parole/Furlough Guidelines -2010 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, it is open to the Government to consider the applications for grant of parole inter alia on various grounds which also includes the ground of filing of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India against a judgment delivered by the High Court convicting or upholding the conviction, as the case may be. Counsel submits that in the present case also, the petitioner is seeking parole for filing SLP before the Supreme Court which is covered by ground 9.7, therefore, the present petitioner may be granted parole for the said purpose. The said guideline reads as under: -

(2.) STATUS report has been filed by the State where the prayer is opposed by the State. It has been submitted that the address given by the applicant has been verified and found that applicant's father along with his younger brother lived at the given address on rent. However, the petitioner never resided on the given address. He does not have any permanent address in Delhi. The applicant's father and younger brother has been living at the given address for the last 3 -4 years and prior to that they had been living in Budhpur, Delhi and Azadpur. In this regard it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the premises at Azadpur and Budhpur were tenanted premises and thereafter his father and brother shifted to Siraspur village, Delhi. Since the petitioner is in custody, therefore, there was no question of his residing at Siraspur village.

(3.) IT is, however, made clear that on expiry of the parole period of one month, the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent, who shall submit the surrender report to this Court alongwith the particulars of the SLP filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti.