Virender Kumar @ Mintu v. State

$~33 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1921/2017 VIRENDER KUMAR @ MINTU ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey & Ms.

Namita Wali, Advocates.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC with Mr.

Varun Nagrath, Advocate.

SI Neeraj, PS South, Rohini.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 24.10.2017 The petitioner has questioned the order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the competent authority whereby his request for being released on parole for getting his minor children admitted in school and re-establishing social ties has been rejected as by that time, minimum of six months had not elapsed from the date of the termination of the previous parole. The date of his previous parole ended only on 14.09.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from the Nominal Roll that though the petitioner was sentenced to death by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 302/394/392/34 of IPC but the aforesaid sentence was modified to life imprisonment up to 25 years, without any remission.

The petitioner has remained in jail for more than 13 years and has

otherwise shown satisfactory behaviour except for two occasions in the year 2014, when he had been punished for misbehaving with other inmates of the jail.

The address of the petitioner has been verified and has been found to be existing.

Taking into account the period of custody of the petitioner (13years) and the fact that after 2014, he has been displaying good behaviour in jail, this court is inclined to grant parole to the petitioner for a specified period. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks, to be counted from the date of his release, on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned jail.

The petitioner shall, however, abide by the conditions listed below:- i) The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities on or before the end of the said period of parole.

j) The petitioner shall not engage himself in any unlawful activity. k) The petitioner would not leave the National Capital Region of Delhi, without intimating the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station.

l) He shall furnish his and his surety's 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.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J OCTOBER 24, 2017 NC