Bhupinder Singh v. State & ORS.
$~32 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1445/2019 BHUPINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr Gurbaksh Singh, Mr Jarnail Singh and Mr Dushyant, Advocates.
versus STATE & ORS.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr Sanjay Lao, ASC for State.
SI Ranveer Singh, PS S.J. Enclave, ND.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R
% 04.09.2019 1.
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that he be granted parole for a period of four weeks in respect of FIR No. 227/2010. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC in respect of FIR No. 227/2010 registered with PS Safdarjung Enclave. 2.
The nominal roll has been filed, which indicates that the petitioner has served a sentence of eight years, eight months and sixteen days as on 26.06.2019. He has also earned remission of two years, two months and twenty-two days. It is further indicated that his overall conduct in jail has been satisfactory.
3.
It is also reported that the petitioner had been released on furlough on four previous occasions and nothing adverse had been reported against him. He was also granted parole on two earlier occasions and nothing adverse had been reported.
4.
It appears that the petitioner has not been granted parole as the same
has been opposed by his wife and daughter (respondent nos. 2 and 3). They had expressed an apprehension regarding their safety on the petitioner being released. The petitioner states that respondent nos. 2 and 3 have opposed the release of the petitioner since they are now enjoying the rentals of his properties.
5.
Given the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner ought not to be denied parole. This is considering the sentence already served and the fact that nothing adverse had been reported against the petitioner on him being released on earlier occasions. However, this Court also considers it apposite to direct that the petitioner shall not contact respondent nos. 2 and 3 while on parole. He shall also not come within a radius of 2 kilometres of H. No. 70, Humayunpur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The petitioner shall also not contact the neighbours of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
6.
The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
7.
Subject to the petitioner complying with the above-mentioned conditions, he is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks from the date of release.
8.
The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2019/RK