Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT Of Delhi)
$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2570/2024 RANJEET KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Abhir Dutt, Advocate (DHCLSC) versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for State with SI Sharmila Yadav P.S.
Gulabi Bagh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R
% 31.01.2025 CRL.M.A. 3118/2025 (under Section 485 & 490 BNSS, 2023 read with Section 528 BNSS for Modification of the Order dated 13.09.2024) 1.
An Application has been filed for modification of the Order dated 13.09.2024, wherein the Furlough was allowed to the Petitioner subject to furnishing of Personal Bond/Cash Surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of one surety.
2.
It is submitted in the Application that the Petitioner is confined to Tihar Jail for almost 7 years and 6 months without remission out of the sentence of 12 years of RI and fine. The objective of grant of Parole is to reestablish social ties. This Court had allowed the Petition vide Order dated 13.09.2024 and granted Furlough for a period of four weeks subject to furnishing of Personal Bond and one Surety Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. However, the Petitioner is not in a position to arrange for the Surety for his release. His parents have already expired and there is no other family member apart from his elder brother who is married and settled elsewhere The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/02/2025 at 10:39:55
and is not coming forward to give the surety for the Petitioner. None had come to meet him in the Jail in the last few weeks and he is not in touch with any family member or friends. It is further submitted that he is working as a Langar Sahayak in the Jail and his conduct is quite satisfactory. He has, therefore, sought modification of the Order dated 13.09.2024 to furnish a Personal Bond/Cash Surety. He undertakes to surrender himself on or before the expiry of Furlough and to abide by all the terms.
3.
Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has opposed the modification of the Furlough condition on the ground that the Nominal Roll mentions the address of the Petitioner as Bihar as well as Delhi and the address of Bihar is required to be verified.
4.
Submissions heard and record perused.
5.
The Furlough Order has been passed in favour of the Petitioner in September, 2024, despite which he has not been able to avail the benefit because of his limitation in furnishing the Surety. 6.
Considering the totality of circumstances, the condition is hereby modified and the Petitioner be released on furnishing of Cash Surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. The Order dated 13.09.2024 is accordingly modified. 7.
The Application stands disposed of.
8.
A copy of the Order be conveyed to the Jail Superintendent for compliance.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J JANUARY 31, 2025/va The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/02/2025 at 10:39:55