Vinod v. The State (NCT Of Delhi)

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1609/2025 VINOD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rajneesh Bhaskar, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Mr. Rachit Raushan, Advocates.

versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.) for the State with Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate SI Shah Faisal, PS New Ashok Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 16.05.2025 CRL.M.A. 15132/2025 (Exemption) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 1609/2025 3.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.N.S.S.'), has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Vinod for quashing of the Order dated 24.02.2025 vide which the Respondent has denied Parole for three months on account of marriage of the daughter and for establishing social ties in FIR No. 393/2007 under Section 364A/34/120B of the Indian The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar. 4.

It is stated in the Petition that on earlier occasion also, he has been granted Parole and has surrendered on time. However, the last time, when he was released on Parole, there was a late surrender of about one month on account of he not being aware of the date of surrender. It is submitted that he be granted Parole.

5.

Learned APP for the State, submits that there is no infirmity in the Order dated 22.04.2025 denying the Parole to the Petitioner, in terms of Rule 1210 Sub Rule V of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. 6.

Submissions heard and the record perused.

7.

The Petitioner has been in jail since 30.08.2013 and serving Sentence in this Case since 05.10.2017. The Nnominal roll also reflects that he has been granted Parole/Furlough on earlier occasions. This time, the only unsatisfactory conduct is that subsequent to dismissal of the Writ Petition by the Apex Court, there was a delay in surrender for which the punishment of stopping canteen facility for four days, has already been awarded. 8.

The Petitioner has explained that the delay of surrender was only on account of not getting any information about the dismissal of the Writ Petition and as soon as he got the information, he immediately himself surrendered before the Jail Superintendent.

9.

There is no apparent unsatisfactory conduct for which the Petitioner should be denied the Parole. Considering the submissions made, the Petitioner be released on Parole for a period of four weeks, on the following terms and conditions:

i.

The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Superintendent.

ii.

The Petitioner shall report to the SHO of the local area once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM during the period of furlough.

iii.

The Petitioner shall furnish a telephone/mobile number to the Jail Superintendent as well as SHO of local police station, on which he can he contacted, if required. The said telephone number shall be kept active and operational at all the times by the petitioner. iv.

The Petitioner shall ordinarily reside at the address mentioned in the Petition.

v.

Immediately upon the expiry of period of Parole, the Petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent.

vi.

The period of Parole shall be counted from the day when the Petitioner is released from jail.

10.

The Petition is disposed of accordingly.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J MAY 16, 2025/RS The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.