Latest news with #JusticeNarula
India Gazette
2 days ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
Delhi HC asks Govt to reconsider remission cancellation, directs opportunity for convict to be heard
New Delhi [India], June 7 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to reconsider the cancellation of the remission granted to a life convict, stressing the need to follow principles of natural justice. The remission was revoked following the convict's arrest in an attempted murder case. 'The liberty of a person cannot be curtailed through administrative fiat without affording procedural safeguards. Since the cancellation of remission results in the convict's re-committal to custody, the consequence is serious enough to require strict adherence to natural justice,' the High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar case. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while directing reconsideration, asked the authorities to issue a show cause notice to the Convict and give him an opportunity before passing an order. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar has approached the High Court challenging the cancellation on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order cancelling his remission was passed. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court has categorically held that any decision to revoke remission must comply with due process and must be preceded by the issuance of a show cause notice, disclosing the grounds for cancellation and granting the convict an opportunity to respond and be heard. The record does not reflect that such an opportunity was extended to the petitioner before the cancellation of remission,' the High Court said in the order passed on May 20. 'While the order was passed in accordance with the Delhi Prison (DP) Rules, 2018, which at the relevant time did not mandate a prior show-cause notice to be issued, the binding precedent of the Supreme Court now requires that such safeguard be read into the process,' Justice Narula said. The High Court ordered, 'Accordingly, and in the interest of fairness, the Court deems it appropriate to direct reconsideration of the cancellation through a procedurally sound and time-bound exercise.' The High Court directed the Delhi government shall within a period of 10 days from today issue a show cause notice detailing the specific grounds on which cancellation of remission is proposed. The Petitioner shall submit a written response within seven days and shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the bench said. The competent authority shall thereafter pass a reasoned order, after due consideration of the petitioner's response, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, Justice Narula ordered. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar moved a petition through advocate Arpit Batra challenging the order of September 24, 2022, passed by the Dy. Secretary (Home), GNCTD, affirmed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi. The sentence remission was revoked, directing him to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Sonkar was convicted and sentenced to a life sentence in a murder case from 2004. After completing fifteen years of incarceration, he applied for premature release on the grounds of sustained good conduct while in custody. The Sentence Review Board (SRB), after considering his case, recommended his premature release, which was duly accepted by the competent authority. On September 9, 2019, the Petitioner was released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond. However, while on remission, in 2021, he was named in an FIR of Police Station Subzi Mandi under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC as well as Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act 1959. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on November 30, 2021, and lodged in Central Jail, Tihar. The authorities construed the initiation of fresh criminal proceedings against the petitioner as a breach of the undertakings embodied in the personal bond executed at the time of his premature release. Advocate Arpit Batra, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the mere pendency of a fresh FIR, particularly one in which the allegations are yet to be tested through trial, cannot constitute a sufficient basis to revoke a remission. It was also submitted that the petitioner was neither issued a show cause notice nor given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the order was passed. It is a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. (ANI)
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Health
- Indian Express
Quashing Pocso FIR, Delhi High Court directs accused to do community service at hospital
The Delhi High Court recently quashed an FIR under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act but expressed its 'disapproval' of the conduct of the accused and directed him to do community service 'as a measure of accountability and reflection'. Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed the FIR after an 'amicable resolution' of the case involving alleged harassment and exploitation of a minor girl. The court ordered the accused to perform community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital from June 1 to 30, where he will be instructed and assigned duties by the medical superintendent. 'In the event of any absenteeism, default, or misconduct on the part of the Petitioner during the course of the community service, the same shall be immediately reported by the Medical Superintendent to the concerned SHO, who shall, in turn, inform the APP for placing the matter before this Court and seeking appropriate orders, including revival of the FIR,' the court further directed. The court recorded that it is quashing the FIR 'solely out of deference to the express wishes of the Complainant and in the interest of her privacy'. This was after the complainant informed the court that she is currently exploring matrimonial prospects and wants to move on from the incident, further stating that a pending criminal case may pose a serious impediment to her future opportunities and personal relationships, as well as causing social stigma. As per the case, in 2017, the complainant shared private photographs with the accused. After they stopped communicating, the accused allegedly began demanding money from the complainant in February 2018, threatening to make the photographs public if their demands were not met. These demands continued until August 2019, when the complainant filed an FIR and a chargesheet was later filed in the case. The two subsequently 'amicably resolved their disputes' and signed a settlement deed in May this year, with the complainant agreeing to the quashing of the FIR. Justice Narula reasoned, 'The facts narrated disclose a pattern emblematic of the darker undercurrents of the social media age, where technology is misused to exert control, induce fear, and compromise dignity. Considering this, at the outset, the Court was not inclined to quash the FIR in a perfunctory manner… In the present case, bearing in mind the overarching aim of facilitating rehabilitation and the Complainant's express wish to put the matter behind her, the Court is of the view that no larger public interest would be compromised by allowing the petition.' Recording its disapproval of the conduct of the accused, the court noted that the allegations pertain to a deeply troubling pattern of coercion and intimidation directed at a school-going minor, including threats to publicly disseminate her private photographs in exchange for money. 'Such behaviour, if true, reflects a gross misuse of digital platforms and an alarming disregard for consent and personal dignity. Nevertheless, the Complainant has unequivocally expressed her desire to move on from this chapter, and has articulated social and emotional burden that the continued pendency of this criminal case may place upon her, particularly in the context of her future prospects, including marriage,' the court recorded. The court, however, left it open for the complainant to revive the FIR.
