Ruby v. State

$~56 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 430/2020 RUBY ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Gautam Khazanchi, Mr Pradyuman Kaistha, Advocates.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr Amit Peswani, Advocate for Ms Nandita Rao, ASC for State with ASI Virender, Crime Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 13.02.2020 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the petitioner be released on parole for a period of three months. 2.

A nominal roll filed indicates that the petitioner had been released on parole on four previous occasions. On the last occasion, the petitioner was released on parole by the orders passed by the respondent. 3.

Admittedly, the petitioner had not applied for parole to the concerned authorities. In the circumstances, this Court does not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. However, it is clarified that if the petitioner applies for parole, the same would be considered by the concerned authorities as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of the application.

4.

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 13, 2020/MK