Dismissed

Rajendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2021CRLP/4009/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 IPC, sought a writ to be granted pandemic parole or short-term bail during the COVID-19 pandemic. The High Court, finding the petitioner only eligible for parole since November 2019 and lacking specified critical ailments, observed that the available anti-parole certification was not supported by current medical evidence and remained unsafe for public pe

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4009 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rajendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief :

¶5

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.4 to recommend/sent the name of the petitioner to the High Powered Committee for consideration of grant of pandemic parole / Short Term bail in light of the circular dated 30.04.2021 regarding compliance of the directions of the meeting of the High Powered Committee (H.P.C.) dated 26.04.2021.

¶6

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on pandemic parole or Short Term bail in the interest of justice."

¶7

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that as per short counter affidavit filed by the State respondents the age of the petitioner is about 69 years. An F.I.R. being Case Crime No.349/1980, dated 02.12.1980, under Sections 147, 148, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Sasni Gate, District - Aligarh, was registered against the petitioner. He was tried in S.T. No.125 of 1981. He was convicted by order dated 03.01.1984, passed by the Sessions Court. The petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No.67 of 1984 before this Court which was dismissed by order dated 05.04.2019. Against the order in appeal, the petitioner filed Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.11257 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2019. The petitioner filed a Review Application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was rejected vide order dated 23.02.2021. According to the petitioner he surrendered on 19.11.2019 and since then he is in District Jail Aligarh. Thus, the petitioner is in jail since 19.11.2019 . His wife died on 06.09.2019 while he was not in jail. Now, the petitioner wants pandemic parole.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under :-

¶9

(i) That the petitioner is more than 65 years of age and, therefore, he deserves consideration for pandemic parole in accordance with the circular dated 30.04.2020.

¶10

(ii) The petitioner be released on short term bail/pandemic parole to perform "Barsi" ceremony of his wife.

¶11

(iii) The petitioner is suffering from diseases and, therefore, he deserves to be considered for pandemic parole.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. submits that the present writ petition is totally merit-less inasmuch as, firstly, the parole application of the petitioner was rejected by the District Magistrate by order dated 12.04.2021, as per provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules 2012. Secondly , as per own case set up in the writ petition, the petitioner is not suffering from any such ailment on the basis of which he may be granted pandemic parole in terms of the Circular dated 30.04.2020 and, thirdly , there is threat of public peace, safety and security as per averments made in paragraph 4 of the short counter affidavit.

¶13

We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition.

¶14

It is undisputed that the petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court in S.T. No.125 of 1981 by judgment and order dated 03.01.1984 and his Criminal Appeal No.67 of 1984 was dismissed on 05.04.2019 and thereafter his Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.11257 of 2019 was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 13.12.2019. His Review application was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 22.03.2021.

¶15

The petitioner is in jail only since 19.11.2019. His wife died on 06.09.2019 while he was not in jail. In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the writ petition the petitioner has made vague averments regarding his ailments and has filed certain test reports/prescription of period prior on 19.11.2019 and a fitness certificate dated 10.04.2019 for him was issued by Doctors of Garg Clinic. No paper has been filed alongwith writ petition to indicate that the petitioner is suffering from any of the heart ailment as specified in para 9 of the Circular dated 30.04.2021, while in jail. Thus, the grounds taken by the petitioner for consideration of grant of pandemic parole are wholly without substance.

¶16

In para 16 of the writ petition, the petitioner has reproduced and relied upon para 9 of the Pandemic Parole Circular dated 30.04.2021, which is reproduced below:

¶17

"The following categories of prisoners/inmates shall also be entitled to Parole for a period of 60 days due to this Pandemic on conditions of Parole as specified unless their release in the recorded opinion of the State Government is detrimental to Public Peace, Safety & Security, and the interest of the administration of Justice;

¶18

1. All male/female inmates above 65 years of age.

¶19

2. All female inmates above 50 years or above whose sibling/siblings are of the age of 6 years or above.

¶20

3. Pregnant women convicts.

¶21

4. All male or female inmates suffering from Cancer or like serious/critical illness, however, on medical certification.

¶22

5. All male or female inmates suffering from serious life threatening Heart ailments (requiring bypass/valve replacement only on proper medical certification)".

¶23

From the facts as aforenoted, it is evident that the petitioner is not suffering from any of the ailments as provided in the circular. The State respondents have clearly stated in paragraph 4 of their short counter affidavit that the District

¶24

Level Committee has come to the conclusion that release of the petitioner on parole may cause threat to public peace, social security and safety and accordingly the name of the petitioner was not recommended for release on special parole.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good reason to issue any direction as prayed by the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner has completely failed to make out a case either for consideration or for grant of pandemic parole. The petitioner is a convict under Section 302 I.P.C. and is languishing in jail only since 19.11.2019.

¶26

For all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶27

Order Date :- 6.10.2021/vkg

¶28

Digitally signed by SURYA Digitally signed by Justice Gautam PRAKASH KESARWANI Chowdhary Date: 2021.10.07 10:14:56 IST Date: 2021.10.07 11:02:31 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Rajendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Moid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Richa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

vinod kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Guddan Devi Vs State of U.P.

Anand Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others