Ram Kishan v. State

$~32.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 485/2017 RAM KISHAN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel and Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Advocate along with SI Parmod Kumar, PSSangam Vihar, for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 15.02.2017 The petitioner has preferred this petition to seek a direction that he be released on parole to be able to re-establish his social ties. The record shows that the petitioner made the said application on 20.09.2016, which has been rejected on 26.12.2016. The nominal roll shows that the petitioner was on furlough between 12.09.2016 and 27.09.2016 granted by the DG(P), and again between 02.12.2016 and 16.12.2016 also granted by the DG(P). The nominal roll also shows that the petitioner has been released on furlough on four occasions in the year 2016, which is contrary to the parole/

furlough guidelines. In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioner is not justified in seeking parole to re-establish his social ties as the said need of the petitioner has already been met by repeatedly releasing him on furlough even after he has made the present application. The DG(P) should also ensure that the parole and furlough guidelines are strictly followed and discriminatory treatment should not be given to any particular convict in the matter of grant of parole and furlough. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. A copy of this order be communicated to the DG(P) as well as the petitioner through the Jail Superintendant.

VIPIN SANGHI, J FEBRUARY 15, 2017 B.S. Rohella