High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/2994/2016

Anita @ Ruby v. State

2016-10-07Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi2 pages

$~46.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2994/2016 ANITA @ RUBY ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sanjay Kr Baranawal, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 07.10.2016 The status report tendered in court is taken on record. Ms. Vohra submits that the petitioner was not released on parole as per order dated 16.09.2016 on account of the fact that the surety who is the mother of the petitioner did not sign the surety bond. According to Ms. Vohra, she was not in town and had gone away to Kolkata. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the mother of the petitioner Rukshana, who has offered to stand as surety is in Delhi. He states that she shall go to the jail and sign the requisite documents such as surety bond etc. as may be required. He states that she shall go to jail on 10.10.2016.

In case the surety offered by the petitioner appears and signs the requisite documents, the petitioner shall be released forthwith in terms of the order dated 16.09.2016.

Petition stands disposed of.

VIPIN SANGHI, J OCTOBER 07, 2016 sr