Tej Pal Singh v. The State (NCT Of Delhi)

$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEJ PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. D.K. Sharma and Mr.

Parikshit Sharma, Advocates.

versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Rahul Mehra, SC for State with SI Yogendra Kumar, PS Burari.

Mr. Kamal Akhtar, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 20.02.2018 Crl.M.A. No. 3215-3216/2018 (Exemptions) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Notice.

Learned Standing Counsel for the State accepts notices. By this petition, the petitioner seeks parole on the ground of marriage of son which is fixed for 5th March, 2018.

Petitioner also filed a petition before this Court being W.P. Crl. 336/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 1st February, 2018 directing the State to take a decision treating the writ petition as a representation within 15 days on merits. Learned counsel for the State

submits that the said application/representation has not been decided by the State till date. The nominal roll has been handed over which is taken on record.

As per the nominal roll, the petitioner is being granted regular parole and furloughs. The last parole granted to the petitioner was for a period of four weeks w.e.f 31st October, 2017 and last furlough granted to the petitioner was for a period of two weeks w.e.f 2nd September, 2017. The nominal roll also reflects that the petitioner has also been granted furlough for a period of three weeks vide order dated 29th December, 2017 which the petitioner can avail at any time. The impediment in the grant of availing of the furlough at the moment appears to be release on parole/furlough of the three co-convicts Satyavir Singh Rathi, Kothari Ram and Sunil, Satyavir Singh Rathi being on furlough till 2nd March, 2018 and Sunil being on furlough till 23rd February, 2018 and Kothari Ram on parole till 2nd March, 2018.

From the nominal roll of the petitioner it is evident that the coconvicts have been released simultaneously, thus this should not be an impediment in the petitioner availing the furlough for a period of three weeks already granted to him by the Director General, Prisons. Be that as it may, since the Director General (Prisons) has already granted furlough to the petitioner for a period of three weeks vide order dated 29th December, 2017, Director General (Prisons) is directed that the petitioner may be permitted to avail the said furlough for a period of three weeks, irrespective of the fact that the co-convicts are on furlough/parole for

the reason that the marriage of the son of the petitioner has been verified to be solemnised on 5th March, 2018.

Petition is disposed of.

Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

FEBRUARY 20, 2018/'yo'