Inderjeet @ Inder v. State

$~11 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 999/2015 INDERJEET @ INDER ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Anwesh Madhukar, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Amrit Singh, Advocate.

SI Pawan Kumar, P.S.Rohini.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 14.08.2015 The petitioner had prayed for his release on parole for re-establishing social ties and for getting himself treated at any super speciality hospital. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 7.4.2015.

Hence this writ petition.

The impugned order discloses that the minimum period of six months had not elapsed from the date of termination of the previous parole as the petitioner had availed one month parole upto 10.12.2014. There was an apprehension of threat to the victim as well as of the petitioner jumping the parole.

The status report filed by Mr.Mehra, standing counsel, affirms the fact that the petitioner has been ailing. However, it has been submitted that he has been getting requisite medical treatment in the jail. He has also been

given treatment for his chronic kidney disease from AIIMS hospital. The nominal roll of the petitioner reveals that he has remained in custody for about 11 years now. The conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory throughout his jail life.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on several occasions he was released on parole and furlough and on all such occasions, he did not indulge in any unlawful activity and surrendered before the jail authorities on time.

Considering the aforementioned fact, let the petitioner be released on parole for a period of 30 days from the date of his release subject to the petitioner furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, 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) If the petitioner is required to go out of the territory of Delhi, he would intimate about his visit to the SHO of the concerned police station.

d) He shall furnish his mobile telephone number and the mobile telephone number of both the sureties 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

the coercive steps for securing his attendance. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. A copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail for information and compliance. Dasti.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 14, 2015 k