High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/1954/2017

Irshad Ahmed v. State

2017-10-11Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

$~36 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1954/2017 IRSHAD AHMED ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey with Ms.

Namita Wali, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC with Mr.

Siddharth Sindhu, Adv.

SI Omvir Dabas, Crime Branch

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 11.10.2017 The request of the petitioner for being released on parole for taking care of his wife and children and for performing the last rites of his mother, who had expired, has been rejected by the competent authority by order dated 01.04.2017.

Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years; to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to suffer SI for one year. Out of the aforesaid period of sentence awarded to him, the petitioner has remained in jail for more than 6 years by now.

He has further submitted that the petitioner has displayed satisfactory conduct in jail. Mr.Sanjay Lao, learned ASC, on the strength of the status report, submits that the address of the petitioner has been verified.

Considering the period of custody of the petitioner and his having shown good conduct in jail, this Court is inclined to release him on parole for a specified period.

Let the petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks, to be counted from the date of his release, on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned jail.

The petitioner shall, however, abide by the conditions listed below :- a) The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities on or before the expiry of the said period of parole. b) The petitioner shall not engage himself in any unlawful activity. c) The petitioner would not leave, under any circumstance, the National Capital Region of Delhi, without intimating the officerin-charge of the concerned police station. d) 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 11, 2017/ns