Rakesh v. State

$~35.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 940/2017 RAKESH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel along with SI Manoj, PS-Kanjhawala, for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 28.03.2017 Issue notice. Mr. Akhtar accepts notice on behalf of Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for the State. He has tendered in Court a status report, which is taken on record.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek parole for a period of three months to facilitate dispensation of medical treatment to his wife, who needs to undergo surgery, and also to re-connect the ties. The nominal roll on record shows that the parole granted to the petitioner ended on 04.11.2016. The status report tendered in Court also shows that the petitioner's wife was advised surgery but she has not reported

to the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute & Research Centre for surgery, or follow up, till date. This communication is dated 22.03.2017. In view of the aforesaid, there is no grave urgency to grant parole to the petitioner at this stage particularly in view of the fact that the period of six months has not elapsed from the date when the last parole expired. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner may seek parole in future under the guidelines and in case of genuine need. VIPIN SANGHI, J MARCH 28, 2017 B.S. Rohella