Suresh @ Muchhad v. State

$~83 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 37/2020 SURESH @ MUCHHAD ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Prashant Mehta and Ms.Vasundhra Bhardwaj, Advocates.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.

Sanjay Lao, ASC with Mr.

Karanjeet Sharma, Advocate with SI Jagbir Singh and Insp. Raj Kumar, PS Darya Ganj.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

% 08.01.2020 The petitioner is seeking modification of the order dated 04.10.2019 by virtue of which the petitioner had been granted furlough subject to his furnishing two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each along with a personal bond in the like amount. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner moved the concerned authority and vide order dated 15.11.2019 modification was declined.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is unable to produce the two sureties as his son is living in Bangalore and he is not bothered about the petitioner and is daughter is married and well settled in her matrimonial home and her in-laws will not allow her to stand as a surety. It is prayed that two sureties

be reduced to one surety.

The said prayer is vehemently opposed by learned counsel appearing for the State, however, he submits that the amount of surety bond be increased in case one surety is allowed. In view of this, the order dated 04.10.2019 is modified to the extent that petitioner shall furnish one surety of Rs.25,000/- along with a personal bond in the like amount for the release of the petitioner on furlough.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. copy of this order be communicated to the Jail Superintendent.

Dasti.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J JANUARY 08, 2020 AK