← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/101/2017

Tekram v. State

2017-01-13Hon'Ble Mr. Justice P.S.Teji2 pages

$~7 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 101/2017 TEKRAM ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Dhan Mohan, Ms.Tanu B. Mishra and Mr.Sarthak Maggon, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State with SI Karamvir, PS Narela.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 13.01.2017 The present petition has been filed for extension of parole. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted parole on 09.12.2016 and after completion of formalities, he was released only on 16.12.2016 and now the present application has been filed for extension of parole for further time for the same purpose.

The petitioner moved an application before the Jail Authorities and before decision to be taken by the Govt. of the NCT of Delhi, the present application for extension of parole was filed. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has furnished the order dated 12.01.2017 vide which the parole application of the petitioner has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has furnished the orders passed in the case of Shashi Shekhar v. State of the NCT of Delhi (W.P.(Crl) 983/2013, 1393/2013, 1677/2013 and LPA 230/2014), Vineet Suri v.

The State (NCT of Delhi) (W.P.(Crl) 1287/2015 & 1995/2015) passed by this Court wherein the parole was extended. The proposition that the extension of parole can be done in exceptional circumstances is not in dispute. However, the order passed by the High Court in the case of Vijay Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi (W.P.(Crl) 1890/2016 decided on 13.06.2016) shows that normally the parole can be granted for a period of four weeks at one point of time and there should be a gap of six months before the next such application is moved. The totality of the reading of the judgments shows that the parole can be extended by the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is yet to engage the counsel and go for the preparation of the SLP. There is no doubt that the SLP can be filed from the jail itself. A prayer has been made to grant the parole for four weeks.

This is not in dispute that under the guidelines, the parole can be granted for a period of one month. In the present matter, the order was passed by the Govt. of the NCT of Delhi on 12.01.2017 rejecting the extension of parole of the petitioner.

In such a scenario, this Court does not find any ground for extension of parole. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, the observations made above shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in any manner at any point of time. P.S.TEJI, J JANUARY 13, 2017/dd