Sikander v. State

$~39 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 2276/2019 SIKANDER ..... Petitioner Through Mr Sunita Arora, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr Sanjay Lao, ASC with Mr Karanjeet Rai Sharma, Advocate.

SI Puran Singh, P.S. GeetalPuri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 22.10.2019 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 18.07.2019, whereby the petitioner's request for being released on parole has been rejected.

2.

A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner's request was rejected in terms of Rule 1210 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, as the petitioner's conduct was not uniformly good during the last one year. 3.

The nominal roll has been placed on record, which indicates that the petitioner was found in possession of loose Tobacco on 08.11.2018 and was punished by stopping his Mulakat for ten days. It is stated that on 10.11.2018, he had inflicted self-injury by a blade. He was punished for the same by stopping his Mulakat for a period of fifteen days and forfeiting ten days of his remission. On 18.03.2019, extra items had been received from his possession and he was warned regarding the same. On the same date, he

also went on hunger strike and he was, once again, warned by the jail authorities.

4.

The petitioner seeks parole for establishing social ties. No special circumstances have been indicated by the petitioner for grant of parole. Further, Rule 1210 Sub-Rule (ii) of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 is not under challenge. In the given circumstances of the case, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned order.

5.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 22, 2019 pkv