Delhi High Court: Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking issuance of direction to the respondent for releasing the petitioner on parole for a period of six weeks to reconnect social ties with the society and his family. Swarana Kanta Sharma J.*, opined that petitioner being convicted in a heinous offence and there being an actual apprehension regarding his presence in the area being detrimental to the larger security interest, coupled with the fact that one of his co-accused had again joined a terrorist organisation after being released on parole, were the factors which would come in the path of the petitioner’s application for parole. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court did not find it a fit case for grant of parole.
Further, conscious of the fact that petitioner had expressed his desire to meet his parents, who could not travel to Delhi, the Court directed that in case petitioner desires, the Superintendent Jail would make one-time arrangement for the video call of petitioner with his parents, in order to provide him an opportunity to at least talk to his parents and see them virtually, if not in person. This might to some extent bring solace to him as a son that he could see his parents and could speak to them, even if virtually and accordingly dismissed the present petition.
Background
Petitioner was convicted for committing an offence under Sections 3(3), 3(5), 4 and 20 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act,2002 and Sections 121, 121-A, 122 and 123 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and had been in judicial custody since 11-09-2003.
Petitioner stated that he had been in judicial custody for more than 20 years and was presently about 44 years of age. He further stated that he wanted to get married, and since his parents were looking for a bride for him, he should be released on parole, as he also wished to meet his old, aged parents. Petitioner also argued that he had never been released on bail/interim bail/parole/furlough in last more than twenty years and he had been continuously in prison from the date of his arrest. t. However, even then, his conduct had been exemplary in the prison, and he was fully entitled to grant of parole.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that as per Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules,2018, the prisoners who were convicted for sedition and terrorist activities should not be granted parole except in discretion of the competent authority and in special circumstances. The Court noted that the co-accused in the present case was released on parole, but instead of returning to jail after expiry period of his parole, he had joined terrorist organization regarding which an FIR was registered under Sections 18, 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Thereafter, co-accused was neutralized in an encounter with security forces on 25-12-2017.
The Court opined that a report received from Police Department, Avantipura, Jammu and Kashmir, where the present petitioner wanted to reside, also mentioned that there was a reasonable apprehension that in case petitioner was released, he would abscond and join terrorist ranks. Further his release on parole would be detrimental to the overall security of the area in the larger security interest.
The Court relied on Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55, and opined that petitioner being convicted in a heinous offence and there being an actual apprehension regarding his presence in the area being detrimental to the larger security interest, coupled with the fact that one of his co-accused had again joined a terrorist organisation after being released on parole, were the factors which would come in the path of the petitioner’s application for parole. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court did not find it a fit case for grant of parole.
Further, conscious of the fact that petitioner had expressed his desire to meet his parents, whom he had not met and who could not travel to Delhi, the Court opined that it did not overlook the fact that as per nominal roll, his conduct in the jail had been satisfactory over the last twenty years, except one punishment in 2010. Thus, the Court directed that in case petitioner desires, the Superintendent Jail would make one-time arrangement for the video call of petitioner with his parents, to provide him an opportunity to at least talk to his parents and see them virtually, if not in person. This might to some extent bring solace to him as a son that he could see his parents and could speak to them, even if virtually.
[Feroz Ahmed Bhatt v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3235, decided on 02-05-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Naiem Jahan Heena and Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Rahul Tyagi, ASC.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
