Surinder Kumar Babbar v. State

$~11 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1369/2017 SURINDER KUMAR BABBAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Suman Chauhan, Adv. with Mr.Jivesh Tiwari, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Addl. Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Lokesh Chander, Adv. for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 05.05.2017 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia for release of the petitioner on parole for three months in order to maintain conjugal right, to repair his house, to re-establish social ties with his family and maintaining social ties.

It appears from the record that the application for grant of parole was filed on 5th September, 2016 and the same was rejected on 4th November, 2016.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. The admitted position is

that the convict would always be entitled to file a fresh application after the lapse of six months. In the present case, six months have already been lapsed and the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application for parole.

After hearing the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that verification is the job of the authorities and the convict has nothing to do with the same. It is further made clear that the nonverification of the facts cannot be treated as the ground for the rejection of the parole.

As per the observation made above, the petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application.

The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. P.S.TEJI, J MAY 05, 2017/aa