Delhi High Court refuses parole to convict undergoing life term for Jigisha, Soumya murders

Ravi Kapoor, currently undergoing life term imprisonment for the murders of journalist Soumya Viswanathan and IT executive Jigisha Ghosh, has been refused parole by the Delhi High Court [Ravi Kapoor v. State]..In a judgment passed on January 12, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that Kapoor was a “habitual offender” having 20 criminal cases against his name.“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,” the judgment stated..Currently lodged in Delhi’s Mandoli Jail, Kapoor was convicted in the murder cases of Ghosh and taxi driver Mohammed Nadeem earlier. A Delhi court convicted him for the murder of Viswanathan in October, 2023.While seeking grant of parole for four weeks, Kapoor’s counsel contended that his client had spent over 14 years in custody without bail, parole or furlough. The counsel argued that there were no grounds to indicate that he would jump parole or prove to be flight risk. Although Kapoor’s conduct in jail had been unsatisfactory owing to the several punishments given to him inside the jail, he had not received any punishment since 2017, it was argued.The State, on the other hand, referred to the Viswanathan’s murder case, saying Kapoor’s conviction was under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. .A total of 16 other criminal cases of "serious nature” were attributed to the convict by the State’s counsel.Although his conduct inside the prison between 2010 and 2017 was found to satisfactory, the court noted that the petitioner had been awarded “41 major punishments” with respect to different categories of offences within the jail premises.“There is no denying the fact that the apex court as well as this court have time and again emphasised the need to respect the rights of the convicts and the need to acknowledge the importance of being released on parole for several purposes, including for maintaining social and family (ties). However, courts are also bound to consider the counterbalancing public interest while deciding the issue of grant of parole,” it observed.While rejecting the plea on account of the petitioner’s criminal history, the Court clarified that its observations ought not influence any prospective applications seeking parole or furlough..Advocate Dimple Vivek represented Kapoor.Advocates Sanjay Lao, Abhinav Kumar, Priyam Agarwal and Shivesh Kaushik appeared for State..Despite getting legal justice, Soumya and Jigisha's parents struggle to find closure.[Read Judgment]