Raj Kumar v. State

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3562/2016 RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Nitish Chaurdhary and Mr Chetan Lokur, Advs versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr Piyush Singhal, Adv for Mr Avi Singh, ASC with SI Sanjay Kaushik

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 29.01.2018 Crl.M.A.No.1706/2018 Petitioner is seeking modification of the order dated 04.07.2017 vide which the parole had been granted to the convict for a period of 4 weeks on certain conditions; one such condition was that he had to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs 5000/- with his father to act as his surety. By way of this application it is informed to this court that the father of the applicant is the only person who is looking after his two minor children at his residence (U.P.); the father is not keeping a good health and being more than 70 years of age, he finds it difficult to travel to Delhi to furnish the bond to the applicant. The modification sought for by way of present application is to release the applicant/petitioner on his personal bond to the tune of Rs 5000/-.

This court notes that parole order had been passed by this court on 04.07.2017, more than 6 months have lapsed since that date, the petitioner is not able to avail of the benefit of this order and thus it appears to be prima facie a genuine case. Accordingly the order is modified and the petitioner be released on cash surety of Rs 5000/- to the satisfaction of the jail Superintendent. The other conditions contained in the parole order shall needless to state have to be abide by.

Petition disposed of.

A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendant concerned for intimation to the petitioner.

INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY 29, 2018 SU