In a significant legal battle, the Delhi High Court has affirmed the decision to reject the parole application of a convict aiming to file a Special Leave Petition challenging his conviction. The court’s ruling underscores the fundamental right to legal representation and access to justice. The case highlights the complexities surrounding the granting of parole for convicts seeking to exercise their legal rights. #LegalJustice #DelhiHighCourt #ParoleDenial
Facts
- The High Court considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.
- The counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The High Court examined the evidence on record and found that the guilt of the appellant was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The High Court noted that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 366/376(2)(g)/34 IPC.
- The appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction was dismissed by the High Court.
Arguments
- Argued that filing of SLP is a crucial right of a convict.
- Competent authorities should not have denied parole to the petitioner.
- The petitioner filed application for parole to engage a counsel for filing SLP and to establish social ties.
- The parole application was rejected by the competent authority on erroneous grounds.
- The application of the petitioner for grant of parole was rejected based on Rule 1210 sub rule (II) and Rule 1212 Note (2) of Delhi Prison Rules 2018.
- The rejection was in accordance with the law and passed by the respondent after due application of mind.
- The nominal roll indicated unsatisfactory overall jail conduct and last year jail conduct of the convict.
- The Superintendent Jail did not recommend parole for the convict.
- Police authorities described the convict as a habitual offender, raising concerns about potential future offenses.
- Another case is also pending against the convict.
Analysis
- The petitioner has maintained uniformly good conduct for almost two years.
- The petitioner is seeking parole to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court to challenge his conviction.
- The petitioner’s conduct in jail has been satisfactory since his last punishment on 06.08.2022.
- No further punishment has been awarded to the petitioner since his last punishment.
- Courts have consistently emphasized the crucial right of a convict to file a Special Leave Petition challenging the dismissal of their criminal appeal by a High Court.
- The petitioner’s right to legal representation and access to justice must be upheld.
- Availability of free legal aid in jail does not negate the petitioner’s right to choose his own legal counsel for filing the SLP.
- As the petitioner’s only option to challenge his conviction lies with the Apex Court, he should be given the opportunity to exercise this right by filing the SLP through his chosen counsel.
Decision
- The petitioner must provide a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with a family member as surety to the Jail Superintendent.
- A copy of the judgment must be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
- The petitioner’s telephone number must be active and available at all times.
- The petitioner is to provide a telephone/mobile number to both the Jail Superintendent and the SHO of the local police station for contact purposes.
- Upon the expiry of the parole period, the petitioner must surrender to the Jail Superintendent.
- A copy of the SLP filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be provided to the Jail Superintendent after surrendering at the end of the parole period.
- The parole period will begin from the day of the petitioner’s release from jail.
- The petitioner must report to the SHO of the local area every Sunday between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM.
- The petitioner should generally reside at the address mentioned in the petition and memo of parties.
Case Title: PARVEEN Vs. STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI (2024:DHC:4552)
Case Number: W.P.(CRL)-7/2024
