← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/1057/2017

Sonu v. State

2017-05-26Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar3 pages

$~2 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1057/2017 SONU ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Aditya Vikram, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Adv.

SI Bhupesh Kumar, P.S.Burari.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 26.05.2017 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the competent authority whereby his prayer for being released on parole for undertaking construction work in his ancestral house and for re-establishing and maintaining social ties has been rejected. The competent authority has cited lack of verification of address and less than satisfactory conduct of the petitioner in jail as grounds for rejecting his representation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the nominal roll of the petitioner which indicates that the petitioner has been in custody since about seven years by now and on earlier occasions, he was granted parole by the competent authority, the last one being from 08.03.2016 to 07.04.2016. The status report indicates that the address of the petitioner has been verified. The petitioner was given a

punishment for a jail offence on 15.10.2016 for his having entered into a minor scuffle with one of the fellow inmate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not punished for keeping any prohibited article in jail or for misbehaving.

Considering the nature of the jail offence, the period of custody of the petitioner and his requirement for maintaining social ties, this Court is persuaded to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of four weeks, to be counted from the date of his release on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned jail.

The petitioner shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities on or before the expiry of the said period of parole. b) The petitioner shall not engage himself in any unlawful activity. c) The petitioner would not leave, under any circumstance, the National Capital Region of Delhi, without the permission of the SHO of the concerned police station.

d) He shall furnish his and his surety's mobile telephone numbers to the SHO of the concerned police station so that in case of necessity he could be tracked and his whereabouts could be ascertained. In case, the petitioner flouts any one of the conditions, an application could be moved by the SHO for cancellation of his parole and for taking of coercive steps for securing his attendance.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

The order be communicated to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and record.

Dasti.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J MAY 26, 2017 k