Bhola Sharma v. State Of NCT Of Delhi

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 566/2026 BHOLA SHARMA .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Astha (DHCLSC) with Ms.

Megha Singh, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl) for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

O R D E R

% 28.04.2026 CRL.M.A. 13186/2026 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.A. 13185/2026 1.

Petitioner herein had sought parole for the reason that he wanted to file Special Leave Petition, challenging his conviction, which had been affirmed by this Court.

2.

He is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and his appeal was dismissed by this Court on 16.09.2025. 3.

When his request was entertained and allowed, this Court while granting parole to petitioner directed him to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.

4.

The bonds were furnished way back on 25.02.2026, but according to petitioner, Superintendent Jail has not taken any decision over the bonds and these are still pending some verification.

5.

During the course of proceedings, the concerned superintendant-Mr. W.P.(CRL) 566/2026 1 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2026 at 13:08:55

Parmod Kumar Gupta and Additional I.G. Prisons-Mr. Pankaj Kumar have joined the proceedings through video-conferencing and submit that, though, the bonds were furnished but the concerned surety never appeared and, therefore, the bonds could not be accepted. They submit that as per the last communication, the surety was stated to be away and would appear on 20.05.2026 only.

6.

In view of the above, no fault can be found in the approach of the concerned jail superintendant as for the purposes of acceptance of the bonds, the surety has to make himself physically available before the Competent Authority.

7.

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present application. 8.

She states that she would convey the needful to the petitioner so that he ensures that his surety appears before the Competent Authority, without any delay.

9.

The present application is disposed of, as not pressed. MANOJ JAIN, J APRIL 28, 2026/sw/js/ss/pb W.P.(CRL) 566/2026 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2026 at 13:08:55