Pankaj @ Deepak v. State

$~8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 3015/2019 and CRL.M.A. 39007/2019 PANKAJ @ DEEPAK ..... Petitioner Through:

Counsel (appearance not given).

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms Richa Kapoor, ASC for State with Ms Shivani Sharma and Mr Chaitanya Bansal, Advocates.

SI Prabhakaran, P.S. Dabri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 06.11.2019 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 08.04.2019, whereby the petitioner's request to be released on parole without providing any surety, was rejected. 2.

The petitioner's application for release on parole was accepted by the respondent subject to certain conditions as specified in the order dated 12.12.2018.

One of the conditions was to provide a surety for a sum of ₹4,000/-, along with personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.

3.

It is averred in the present petition that his daughter is a minor and lives in Nari Niketan and his wife has since deserted the family. It is also stated that all his family members are from a lower socioeconomic strata and live in West Bengal and none of them can travel to Delhi to stand as a

surety.

4.

The status report has been filed which indicates that the said averments are not correct.

5.

It has been verified that the petitioner's elder daughter works with Reliance Digital in Sector 13, Dwarka and earns ₹14,000/- per month. The petitioner's wife is working in a garment shop and earns ₹12,000/- per month. They live together in a tenanted accommodation. It is also reported that the petitioner's daughter has also confirmed that she and her brother had visited the petitioner in Tihar Jail and she is willing to stand as a surety for her father.

6.

In view of the above, the present petition is unmerited and is, accordingly dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 06, 2019 RK