Rakesh @ Raj v. State NCT Of Delhi

$~5 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 3479/2016 RAKESH @ RAJ ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sunil Upadhyay, Adv.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.R.S.

Kundu, ASC with SI Dhananjay Kumar, PS Tilak Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 14.12.2016 The present petition has been filed for the grant of parole for a period of three months being aggrieved by the order of the jail authorities dismissing the parole application. On 07.12.2016, time was sought by the counsel for the petitioner to place on record the application seeking parole applied before the jail authorities.

In response to the same, copy of the application has been filed. In the application, grounds taken for the grant of parole are in column no.10 from A to F which reads as under: A.That the applicant's wife is seriously ill and was admitted in hospital (Sharma Clinic, Rao Ji Market, Railway Road, Dadri, U.P.) for medical treatment and thereafter discharged. Her condition is still not stabilized

and she is still under medical treatment from the said hospital.

B.That there is no responsible member in applicant's family who can look after his ailing wife and can arrange funds for her treatment except applicant's three years old son and his aged mother. The applicant will stay at hte above mentioned address on parole period.

C.That the applicant is continuously languishing in judicial custody since 03.04.2008 (more than 8 years and months).

D.The applicant also wants to maintain social ties with his family members & society, to combat inner stress, hence this application for grant of parole as per the provisions of "Parole/Furlough Guideline-2010". E.That the applicant has availed interim bail four times before and after conviction on parole & furlough on numerous occasions.

F.That the applicant has clean antecedents and there is no case pending against the applicant.

Apparently, neither any ailment or disease or any sort of thing is mentioned in the entire application. This application itself does not warrant any order of parole as it is without any reason. In the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to grant parole to the petitioner.

However, the petitioner is at the liberty to move fresh application before the jail authorities giving the details of the ailment

and requirement of parole which should be decided within a period of one month.

The present petition is accordingly disposed of. P.S.TEJI, J DECEMBER 14, 2016 dd