Pushpender v. State

$~4 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 265/2017 PUSHPENDER ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr. Saurabh Kansal and Ms. Pallavi S. Kansal, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through :

Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC with SI Karamvir PS Narela.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 20.03.2017 Petitioner has prayed for grant of parole on the ground that his wife is suffering from Uterus Prolapse and petitioner has to help her for taking proper treatment.

Address of the petitioner has been verified.

It is also verified that petitioner's wife is suffering from Uterus Prolapse and receiving treatment from Parmanand Hospital.

It is stated in the status report that no date of operation has been fixed, inasmuch as, petitioner's wife has not visited the hospital after 3rd October, 2016. Petitioner was earlier granted parole in the month of April, 2016. It is not the case that he has misused the concession of parole granted to him. Keeping in mind the totality of the circumstances, it is ordered that

petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Jail Superintendent.

During parole period, petitioner shall report to the SHO of the concerned police station once in a week, that is, on every Monday at 10:00 am and give his mobile number to the SHO. After completion of parole period, petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent to serve upon the petitioner and for compliance.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

MARCH 20, 2017/dk