Mumtaz Ali Ansari v. State

$~4 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 668/2017 MUMTAZ ALI ANSARI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Rajneesh, Adv. proxy for Mr.Biswajit Kumar Patra, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC for the State with Insp.Arvind Kumar (SHO) and SI Sunil Kumar, PS Govind Puri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 30.03.2017 The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the grant of parole of three months to the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2016.

The ground taken while rejecting the application for the grant of parole of the petitioner is that the address of the convict could not be verified. This Court earlier dealt with this issue in detail and is of the considered opinion that non-verification of the address ipso facto will not give rise to rejection of the parole application. Verification of address is the duty of the authorities concerned. and to arrive at its satisfaction and in case the same is not done within the statutory period in which the application for the grant of parole is to be

decided, the convict cannot be deprived of his right to seek the parole on this ground.

Mr.Sanjay Lao, learned ASC for the State has submitted that now the address has been verified.

In view of the above factual position, the present petition is disposed of.

The competent authority shall re-consider the parole application of the petitioner in view of the address verification done by the State and pass the order afresh within two weeks of the receipt of the order.

Dasti under the signature of Court Master.

P.S.TEJI, J MARCH 30, 2017 dd