Himanshu v. State

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3346/2016 HIMANSHU ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, Mr.

Gurpreet Singh, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Adv. for Mr.

Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with SI Sachin Yadav PS Sarai Rohilla.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 25.11.2016 1.

By this petition the petitioner seeks extension of parole. The reason for seeking extension of parole is that vide OPD Card dated 18th November, 2016 the petitioner has been advised Colonoscopy on 7th December, 2016. According to the petitioner he could not get the colonoscopy done earlier as he was suffering from Chikenguniya.

2.

Learned proxy counsel for learned Standing Counsel has handed over the status report and nominal roll of the petitioner. Though the medial documents from Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital have been verified to be genuine, however as per the report the petitioner visited the OPD on 18th November, 2016. Thereafter the date of colonoscopy was fixed for 7th December, 2016.

W.P.(CRL) 3346/2016

3.

A perusal of the nominal roll reveals that in this year the petitioner has availed three furloughs; one for a period of three weeks and two for two weeks in January, May and August, 2016. Further he was granted parole by the GNCT with effect from 25th October, 2016 and the petitioner is due to surrender today i.e. 25th November, 2016. It is apparent that at the fag end of the parole i.e. on 18th November, 2016 the peittioner visited RML hospital for his treatment despite the fact that he must have been diagnosed earlier. 4.

This Court finds no reason to extend the parole. However the Superintendent Tihar Jail will take the petitioner for a colonoscopy RML Hospital on the 7th December, 2016 and provide all necessary medical assistance.

5.

Petition is dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

NOVEMBER 25, 2016 'ga'

W.P.(CRL) 3346/2016