Manoj v. State Of NCT Of Delhi
$~47 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 863/2025, CRL.M.A. 8044/2025 MANOJ .....Petitioner Through:
Ms. Gayatri Nandwani and Ms. Mudita Sharda, Advocates.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC with Ms. Priyam Agrawal, Advocate for State with Mr. Tarun Kumar, SI, PS-Sadar Bazar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 17.03.2025 1.
The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks quashing of the punishment ticket dated 14th October, 20241 issued by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail No. 02, Tihar. The Petitioner has been convicted in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 81/2010 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Sadar Bazar.
2.
Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC, accepts notice. 3.
The impugned punishment ticket reads as follows: 1 "the impugned punishment ticket"
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
4.
Ms. Gayatri Nandwani, counsel for Petitioner, argues that the delay on the part of the Petitioner in surrendering was entirely inadvertent and based on a wrong understanding of the legal position. It is pointed out that on 19th July, 2024, the Supreme Court, in W.P. (Crl.) 296/2024, had allowed the Petitioner, time to surrender till the next returnable date which was 6th September, 2024. On the said returnable date, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter to 10th September, 2024 giving liberty to the State to file additional documents. However, on 10th September, 2024, the petition was The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
dismissed. The Petitioner immediately surrendered on the next day i.e. on 11th September, 2024, after being apprised of the said order through his counsel.
5.
Ms. Nandwani further submits that there was no wilful intent on the part of the Petitioner in delaying his surrender and this small infraction is only on account of miscommunication between him and the counsel that Petitioner was required to surrender on 6th September, 2024. 6.
On the other hand, counsel for State, submits that since evidently there has been a delay on the part of the Petitioner in surrendering, the punishment ticket has been rightly issued. The Supreme Court did not pass any order regarding extension of furlough and the Petitioner was required to surrender on the due date. Evidently, there has been a delay in surrendering and therefore, the impugned punishment ticket calls for no interference. 7.
The Court has considered the afore-noted contentions. The impugned punishment ticket arises from the lapse on the part of the Petitioner as there was a delay of 4 days in his part in surrendering. This, as explained by the Petitioner, has occurred on account of peculiar circumstances where apparently the Petitioner was not properly advised by his counsel that he was required to surrender on 6th September, 2024. The order dated 10th September, 2024 was communicated to him at 7:30 PM and the Petitioner then surrendered promptly on 11th September, 2024. 8.
Since, the Petitioner has voluntarily surrendered immediately on becoming aware that he could no longer continue on furlough, he has exhibited intent to not misuse the liberty granted. 9.
In light of the foregoing, the request made in the present petition is allowed and the punishment ticket dated 14th October, 2024 is hereby set The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
aside.
10.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J MARCH 17, 2025 nk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.