New Delhi, May 3 The Delhi High Court has granted four weeks’ parole to a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to enable him to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, holding that a prisoner cannot be compelled to rely solely on jail legal aid or consultations in prison visitors’ rooms.
A single-judge bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia, while setting aside the rejection order passed by prison authorities, observed that the petitioner’s parole plea could not be denied merely because he was convicted under the POCSO Act.
The competent authority had rejected Faizan Ahmad’s parole application on April 10 on the grounds that he was a POCSO convict. However, relying on its recent ruling in a similar case, the Delhi High Court reiterated that "the convict cannot be compelled to avail services of jail advocate, as against his choice of a private counsel", and that the visitors’ room in jail "is not a conducive environment for an effective discussion with the counsel".
Justice Kathpalia observed that denying parole in such circumstances would deprive the prisoner of his right to effectively pursue legal remedies before the apex court.
"In order to ensure that the petitioner is not deprived of a right to be effectively heard by the Supreme Court, grant of parole cannot be denied to him," the order said.
The Delhi High Court recorded that the prosecution, in fairness, did not oppose the petition, though it sought safeguards to ensure that the convict does not contact prosecution witnesses and remains at an address away from the prosecutrix’s residence.
Allowing the plea, Justice Kathpalia directed the petitioner’s release on parole for four weeks upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety of the like amount. The judge imposed strict conditions, including that the petitioner must provide his mobile number and residence details to the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned, remain accessible at all times, and submit a copy of the SLP to jail authorities upon surrender.
It further made clear that "no extension of parole shall be allowed on any ground whatsoever".
The petitioner has also been expressly restrained from contacting any prosecution witnesses during the parole period.
Justice Kathpalia directed jail authorities to inform the convict in writing of the exact surrender date at the time of release.
Earlier, in the case of another POCSO convict, the Delhi High Court had similarly held that while legal aid or jail visits by private lawyers may technically be available, they do not adequately safeguard a prisoner’s right to effective legal representation. It had then held that parole could not be denied if doing so deprived a prisoner of the right to be effectively heard before the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor