Manjeet Singh v. State NCT Of Delhi
10# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MANJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by:
Mr. Vikram Mathur and Mr.
Jatin Rajput, Advocates with petitioner in person.
versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by:
Ms. Kamna Vohra, Additional Standing Counsel for the State with SI Nikhil Singh, PS Kanjhawala.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 11.05.2017 1.
The petitioner is undergoing conviction in case FIR No.60/2006 under Sections 363/376(2) (g)/506 IPC registered at PS Kanjhawala, Delhi. 2.
The petitioner had applied for grant of parole to the competent authority on the ground that he has to re-establish social ties and to file the Special Leave Petition which request was declined vide communication dated 11th August, 2016.
3.
Aggrieved by the said communication dated 11th August, 2016 the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P. (Crl.) No.2933/2016 wherein this Court vide order dated 2nd February, 2017 granted him parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount. The grant of parole was to be
effected from 22nd February, 2017 when the co-accused Deepak Malik would have surrendered to custody. On expiry of the period of four weeks the petitioner did not surrender to custody and filed the present petition. 4.
On 31st March, 2017 when the present petition being W.P. (Crl.) No.990/2017 came up before this Court, the petitioner sought extension of parole and stated that he was to surrender on 23rd March, 2017 however, since his father suffered a heart ailment, he had to be rushed to the hospital and his angiography was fixed for 6th April, 2017. 5.
Considering the documents shown, this Court issued notice to the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and fixed the matter for 12th April, 2017 extending the parole to that date on the same terms and conditions as per order dated 2nd February, 2017 passed in W.P. (Crl.) No.2933/2016.
6.
Thereafter status reports were filed and the petitioner continued filing documents which were verified which show that two angioplasty of the father of the petitioner were done, one on 23rd April, 2017 and other on 27th April, 2017.
7.
Today again the petitioner states that he be granted an extension of three days as he has to take his father to the hospital. Father of the petitioner was discharged on the next day, i.e. on 28th April, 2017 and has already visited the OPD once after the discharge.
8.
Considering the fact that by the present petition the petitioner had sought extension of parole for a period of further four weeks and by various orders passed by this Court, considering the condition of the father of the petitioner sufficient extensions for more than six weeks have already been
granted, the present petition is disposed of as no further extension is required to be granted to the petitioner.
9.
The petitioner will surrender to custody today itself before the Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 11, 2017 'vn'