High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/1411/2017

Om Prakash v. State

2017-07-12Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

$~13 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1411/2017 OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner Through Mr.S.B. Dandapani, Adv.

Versus

STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ranbir Singh Kundu, ASC.

SI Sandeep Kumar PS Kalyanpuri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 12.07.2017 The petitioner made a request to the competent authority for being released on parole for the purposes of looking after his old wife as also for reconnecting social ties but such a request was turned down on the adverse police report and on the finding that the grounds raised by the petitioner are not genuine.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the nominal roll which indicates that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 8 years by now and his overall conduct in jail has been satisfactory.

The last time when the petitioner was released on parole was in the year 2010 by the order of this Court. There is nothing on record to suggest that his release on parole would caste an adverse impact on the societal movement.

The address of the petitioner has been verified. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on parole.

Let the petitioner be released on parole 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.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction Superintendent of the concerned jail.

The petitioner shall abide by the conditions listed below:- 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 intimating the officerin-charge of the concerned police station. d) He shall furnish his and his sureties' 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.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JULY 12, 2017/ab