Anil Kumar v. State (NCT Of Delhi)

$~26 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1441/2017 ANIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Dhan Mohan, Ms. Tanu B.

Mishra and Ms. Meena Chaudhary, Advs.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State with SI Dheer Singh, P.S. Mayur Vihar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 31.08.2017 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the competent authority whereby his request for being released on parole for the purposes of looking after his old father has been rejected. The grounds for rejecting his prayer are adverse police report, possibility of the petitioner breaching law and order situation in the society and of causing negative impact on the victim.

On one of the occasions, when the petitioner was released on parole, he had surrendered a day later. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the nominal role which clearly indicates that the petitioner has remained in jail for about 09 years by now and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory.

The petitioner was released on interim bail and parole on several occasions and on none of those occasions when the petitioner was out of jail, anything adverse was reported against him.

Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, learned ASC, on instructions, submits that the address of the petitioner has been verified and has been found to be correct. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on parole for a specified period.

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 of the Trial Court.

The petitioner shall, however, 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.

Dasti.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 31, 2017 rb