← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/1934/2019

Chander Prakash v. State

2019-10-24Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru2 pages

$~17 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1934/2019 CHANDER PRAKASH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Gautam Khazanchi and Mr Pradyuman Kaistha, Advocates.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

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

SI Ajeet Kumar, PS Sangam Vihar.

Dr Akash Narade, Medical Officer, Incharge, Central Jail Hospital, Tihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 24.10.2019 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that respondent be directed to release the petitioner for a period of three months on parole in order for him to obtain proper medical treatment. 2.

The nominal roll has been filed which indicates that the petitioner had released on parole on 03.04.2012 for a period of four weeks but he did not surrender and had jumped parole. He was re-arrested on 03.06.2012. It is seen that he was released on parole thereafter on 15.07.2016, for a period of four weeks. He once again did not surrender and was re-arrested on 14.10.2016. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has provided explanations for the same and it is possible that some of the explanations are merited. However, given the circumstances of this case, this Court does not consider it apposite

to accede to the aforesaid prayer. It is material to note that the petitioner has sought release on parole for securing medical treatment. Necessary orders for providing him treatment were issued and therefore, this reason also does not survive.

3.

At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner's mother may be allowed attend to him during his treatment at the hospital. The said request is reasonable and this Court finds no ground to refuse the same. Accordingly, the authorities are directed to inform the petitioner's mother regarding his treatment and they would also facilitate her to attend to him during his treatment at the given hospital. 4.

The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 24, 2019 RK