Raksha Jindal v. State & ANR.

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 604/2016 RAKSHA JINDAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Sumit Arora, Advocate versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondent Through:

Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.PP for CBI Ms.Monica Gupta and Ms.Garima Singh Yadav, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 01.03.2016 1.

The petitioner is seeking extension of parole for a period of another one month on medical grounds. It is also mentioned in the application that doctors at PGI Chandigarh have now given her the date of 10.03.2016 for Total Knee Replacement (TKR) surgery.

2.

In W.P.(Crl.) 2444/2015 while granting parole for a period of 30 days by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2016, certain conditions were imposed which read as under:- "a) The petitioner shall ensure that knee replacement surgery be done during the period of parole.

b) The petitioner shall positively surrender on the expiry of the said period of parole.

c) The petitioner shall not engage herself in any unlawful activity.

d) She shall furnish her mobile telephone number and the mobile telephone number of both the sureties to the SHO of the concerned police station so that in case of necessity she could be tracked and her whereabouts could be ascertained." 3.

When the parole was granted for specific purpose i.e. Knee Replacement Surgery, for whatever reasons if the surgery was not conducted, the petitioner should have surrendered before the expiry of 30

days so as to avail the remaining period as and when required for surgery. 4.

Now when the period of parole is going to expire she has filed this writ petition for extension of parole for a further period of one month which cannot be justified at this stage.

5.

The application is dismissed.

PRATIBHA RANI, J MARCH 01, 2016/hkaur