In W.P. (CRL) 2998/2023-DEL HC- Delhi HC refuses to grant parole to life convict involved in 20 criminal cases, says overall jail conduct has been unsatisfactory
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [12-01-2024]

Read Order:  RAVI KAPOOR v. STATE-NCT OF DELHI

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, January 16, 2023: The Delhi High Court has rejected the parole request of a murder convict after considering the fact that 41 major punishments had been imposed on him and no document or material had been placed on record in order to substantiate the claim of undergoing a knee surgery.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was considering a plea of Ravi Kapoor, who has currently been serving his life sentence, seeking parole for a period of four weeks since he continued to remain in jail for more than 14 years. The petitioner sought parole on the ground of maintaining social ties with his family and for undergoing a knee surgery.

The facts of the case suggested that the  petitioner has been currently confined in Central Jail, Mandoli, Delhi, in a case arising out of an FIR in which he was sentenced to death for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 364 and 394 of IPC, simple imprisonment for seven years for offence under Sections 201 and 468 of IPC, two years of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 471 of IPC, and one year of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. In 2018, the High Court had commuted the death sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 302 of IPC to life imprisonment.

A writ petition was filed in October, 2023, raising a grievance that the application seeking parole filed by the petitioner before the competent authority in July, 2023 had not been decided, despite lapse of more than two months and in view thereof, he had to first approach the High Court by way of an earlier petition which was disposed of on the submissions made on behalf of State that the application filed by the petitioner before the competent authority would be decided within a period of two weeks. However, it was the case of petitioner that since the competent authority had again failed to decide the application filed by the petitioner seeking parole, he was then compelled to approach this Court through the present writ petition.

It was noticed by the Bench that though the nominal role reflected that the jail conduct of the petitioner since the year 2017 had remained satisfactory, however, between the period 2010 to 2017, the petitioner had been awarded 41 major punishments in respect of different categories of offences committed by the petitioner within the jail premises.

The petitioner had been involved in 20 other criminal cases including cases pertaining to commission of offences of murder robbery, theft as well as offences under Arms Act, etc. The Bench noticed that the petitioner herein, as on date, stood convicted in two cases involving offence under Section 302 of IPC, for which he had been awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. The most recent conviction was the one under 302 of IPC as well as MCOCA wherein it was alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused persons had shot and killed a journalist, in September, 2008, with the motive of committing robbery. The conviction of the petitioner in one of the cases also related to an FIR in which he along with co-accused persons had abducted one woman in a car and thereafter, they had robbed her off her belongings. Allegedly, they had smothered her to death and then dumped her body in bushes near Surajkund, Faridabad.

Considering the fact that the parole had not been sought on grounds of any exigency in the family of petitioner but for the purpose of maintaining social and family ties, the Bench noted that neither any document or material in support of undergoing a knee surgery had been placed on record.

“When this Court examines the factual matrix of the present case, on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles laid down and observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court notes that the petitioner herein is a habitual offender, who has been involved in about 20 criminal cases between the period 2002 to 2010, and has been convicted in two cases involving commission of offences such as murder and robbery, and the most recent conviction being in October, 2023. Though his conduct inside jail remains satisfactory for last few years, the overall jail conduct has been unsatisfactory owing to as many as 41 major punishments being awarded to him”, the Bench said.

Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench rejected the plea of grant of parole.