High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/280/2017

Rajender Kumar v. State

2017-07-13Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar3 pages

$~8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 280/2017 RAJENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Dinesh Malik, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC with Mr.Siddharth Sindhu, Adv.

SI Naveen Kumar PS Patel Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 13.07.2017 The petitioner has questioned the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the competent authority whereby his prayer for being released on parole has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the nominal roll which indicates that the last time when the petitioner had come out of jail on furlough was in the year 2016. The conduct of the petitioner in jail has been satisfactory. The petitioner has already undergone about 8 years in custody. The petitioner is required to look after to his ailing father who is suffering from chronic Asthma and has recently undergone brain surgery. The other grounds raised by the petitioner seeking parole is to reconnect social ties as also to find a suitable match for his son.

The address of the petitioner has been verified. The other contentions of the petitioner also, on verification, have been found to be true. This Court takes note of the fact that on earlier occasion also when he was granted furlough by the competent authority, no adverse report came against him. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on parole for a specified period. Let the petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks, to be counted from the date of his release, on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction Superintendent of the concerned jail.

The petitioner shall abide by the conditions listed below:- a) The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities on or before the expiry of the said period of parole. b) The petitioner shall not engage himself in any unlawful activity. c) The petitioner would not leave, under any circumstance, the National Capital Region of Delhi, without intimating the officerin-charge of the concerned police station. d) He shall furnish his and his sureties' mobile telephone numbers to the SHO of the concerned police station so that in case of necessity he could be tracked and his whereabouts could be ascertained. In case, the petitioner flouts any one of the conditions, an application could be moved by the SHO for cancellation of his parole and for taking of coercive steps for securing his attendance.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

The order be communicated to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and record.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JULY 13, 2017/ab