Yad Ram @ Phattu v. State

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 638/2016 YAD RAM @ PHATTU ..... Petitioner Through:

Mohd. Faraz & Ms.Megha, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Rahul Mehra, St. Counsel for the State with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Adv. and SI Brij Mohan, PS Welcome

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 15.03.2016 1.

By way of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking grant of three months parole for filing SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and maintaining social ties.

2.

The note on the nominal roll available on record reads as under: "The convict was released on 15.01.2011 from the Jail on regular bail as was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Further an order dated 18.9.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein the Crl. Appeal No. 1213/10 of convict had been dismissed and order to appellant will suffer the remaining sentence, however, the said convict was not surrender in jail after dismissed of Crl. Appeal, while he was re-arrested on 16.01.2015 in other case FIR No. 32/15 u/2 307 IPC P.S. welcome (Acquitted in this case 28.10.2015) in Central Jail No. 01 Tihar. After received the information about the re-arrested of convict, he was taken in to custody on 28.01.2015 in case FIR No. 442/08, U/s 302/34 IPC, P.S.

Welcome. Apart from this period w.e.f. 16.01.15 to 27.01.15 has not counted in the period of incarceration as he was detained in case FIR No. 32/15, U/s 307 IPC, P.S. Welcome as under trial.

3.

Clause 11.2 of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010 provides that in order to be eligible for release on parole the conduct of the prisoner in prison must have been uniformly good.

4.

The representation made by the petitioner for grant of parole was earlier rejected by the competent authority in the absence of requisite police verification report regarding verification of address and grounds taken by convict from concerned police authorities i.e. DCP/North East Distt., Delhi and SHO/PS Welcome, Delhi, which could not be obtained despite several requests.

5.

In view of the above, the application of the petitioner for grant of three months parole is dismissed.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

MARCH 15, 2016 'hkaur'