High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/1349/2015

Ravi v. State

2015-07-07Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar3 pages

$~35 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1349/2015 RAVI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ankur Sood, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.

SI Vijay Kumar PS Subzi Mandi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 07.07.2015 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the competent authority whereby his application for parole has been rejected. The order depicts that the petitioner is involved in other criminal cases.

The authority also apprehends that in case the petitioner is released on parole, he may jump the parole and may not surrender before the jail authorities.

Mr. Aggarwal, learned ASC, during the course of hearing, has filed the status report. Let it be taken on record. The facts stated in the status report are same and similar to the grounds which have been taken by the competent authority in rejecting the prayer.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is required to file SLP against

the judgment of conviction, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days from today.

The petitioner would be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. One of the sureties would be his relative who would not be having any criminal cases pending against him. The bond shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned jail. The release of the petitioner on parole would be strictly on the following conditions: i.

The petitioner shall not meet any one of the relatives of the witnesses of the victim.

ii.

The petitioner shall furnish the mobile telephone number and the telephone numbers of both the sureties to the SHO of the concerned police station.

iii. The petitioner would not leave, under any circumstance, the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

iv. The petitioner shall report every alternate day to the SHO of the concerned police station and would have his attendance marked.

In case anyone of the conditions imposed on the petitioner is flouted, the SHO of the concerned police station would file two pages affidavit stating about the conduct of the petitioner. In that event, this petition would be revived and would be listed before this Court for necessary orders for cancelling the parole.

Petition is allowed and disposed off with the aforesaid conditions. ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JULY 07, 2015 ab