Pawan @ Amit v. State

$~19 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 34/2015 PAWAN @ AMIT ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through :

Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Tushar Sannu, Advocate.

SI Mahavir, PS Anand Parbat.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

O R D E R

% 14.09.2016 Crl.M.A.12681/2016 1.

Vide order dated 08.01.2015, the petitioner was granted parole for a period of three weeks from the date of his release, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The petitioner could not furnish the surety due to poverty. Vide order dated 15.12.2015, this amount was reduced to `20,000/-. Again, present application has been moved for reduction of surety amount as the petitioner could not furnish the required surety.

2.

Considering the gravity of the offence whereby the petitioner was awarded imprisonment for life, I find no sufficient ground for further reduction of surety. Dismissed.

S.P.GARG, J.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 / sa