Jagjeet @ Raju v. State

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL.) 858/2020 JAGJEET @ RAJU ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Amit Peswani, Advocate for Ms Nandita Rao, ASC for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 09.06.2020 [Hearing held through video conferencing] 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the order dated 09.01.2020, whereby the petitioner's request for parole had been rejected in view of Rule 1211(II) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 which proscribes grant of parole to prisoners convicted for sedition, terrorist activities and under the NDPS Act except in special circumstances and at the discretion of the competent authority.

2.

The nominal roll has been received, which indicates that the petitioner has already served rigorous imprisonment of 10 years as awarded to him. He was also imposed a fine of ₹3,00,000/- and in default directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months. The petitioner has not paid the fine and is currently undergoing sentence of simple imprisonment on

account of default in payment of fine. The nominal roll indicates that as on 02.06.2020, the petitioner has already served 05 months and 06 days of the default sentence of 06 months. Thus, as on date, he is required to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 17 days. 3.

A status report has been filed which indicates that the concerned authorities have been unable to verify whether the son of the petitioner has suffered any injury.

4.

Considering the above and considering that the petitioner is required to serve only 17 more days of simple imprisonment, this Court does not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. The same is, accordingly, disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUNE 09, 2020 MK