High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/1138/2017

Pappu Singh v. State

2017-04-21Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

$~64 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1138/2017 PAPPU SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Rajeshwer Kr.Gupta with Ms.Meenakshi, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms.Mallika Parmar, proxy counsel for Ms.Richa Kapoor, Addl.Standing Counsel for State alongwith SI Lalit Chauhan from PS Timar Pur, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 21.04.2017 Present petition is for grant of parole to the petitioner for attending the wedding ceremony of his son which is to take place on 28th April, 2017. The petitioner has been convicted under Sections 304A/279 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner is in custody since 4th March, 2017. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the representation of the petitioner before the competent authority for grant of parole has not been registered/accepted, hence, he was forced to file the present writ petition.

The counsel for the State submits that the statement regarding the marriage of the son of the petitioner to be held on 28th April, 2017 has been verified and has been found to be correct.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is the father of the groom and that he shall be required to perform certain ceremonies, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on parole for seven days for attending the wedding ceremony.

The petitioner is accordingly directed to be released on parole for seven days, to be counted from the date of his release, coinciding with the wedding date of the son of the petitioner, subject to 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 furnish his and his surety's mobile telephone numbers to the Superintendent of the jail who shall forthwith transmit the same to the SHO of the concerned police station. The petitioner would positively surrender after the expiry of the period of parole. The petitioner shall not involve himself in any unlawful activity during parole. This Court is conscious of the fact that one of the guidelines regarding release of persons on parole is that he should have served at least one year. But, considering the fact that the entire sentence is for six months, parole has been given to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of court master.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J APRIL 21, 2017 mb