The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by a convict serving life term, seeking emergency parole.
Noting that there was no error in the earlier order passed by the single judge bench, the division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan turned down the plea and said: “Looking at the facts and circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the petition.”
Life term convict Surender Kumar had prayed for parole on grounds of the medical condition, self-preservation during the pandemic, falsity of punishment imposed, and re-establishing social ties with the cousin brother.
His advocate, Sarthak Maggon, had challenged the earlier order dated August 31.
The plea alleged that the petitioner has been wrongly punished by the jail authorities under the false pretext/to avenge harassment complaints that he was in possession of a mobile phone inside the prison.
“It must be noted that the punishment was granted due to a complaint made at the behest of the Appellant against certain jail officials for physical violence. The Appellant has since the award of the punishment undergone two extensive rounds of litigation,” the plea said.
The plea further alleged that the entire conspiracy for illegally awarding punishment was only undertaken to avenge the conduct of the flatmate of the Appellant namely Shri Nath and also to discriminate against the Appellant through the same occurrence for raising his voice against the high-handedness of the prison authorities.
Challenging the order passed by the single judge bench, the petitioner said, “The Ld. Single Judge committed an error by considering the petition solely on the ground of parity with the case of the flatmate of the Appellant namely Shri Nath who has already been released on parole by an order of a Concurrent Bench.”
It also said that the single judge erred in applying the rules applicable to grant of regular parole in respect of prayer of emergency parole.
Arguing for Surender Kumar, Maggon said, that his client has maintained an impeccable conduct during the last 20 years he has been in jail and had made himself eligible for furlough.
Kumar has been lodged in an open jail but on January 29 this year, a mobile phone charger was allegedly found in his flat where he resided while in the open jail with other convict namely Shri Nath (currently released on emergency parole).
It was Surender Kumar’s case that open jail convicts are permitted to carry mobile phones to their place of work and the said mobile phone was deposited with the semi-open jail guard, as per rule.
He has further stated that the said punishment is a larger conspiracy by jail administration to falsely implicate the Appellant for cancellation of furlough due to complaints regarding prison harassment made at the behest of the Appellant against certain high ranking jail officials.
