Naval Kishore v. State

$~64 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 2097/2017 NAVAL KISHORE ..... Petitioner Through Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Adv.

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

SI Dharmendra Pratap Singh PS Samaipur Badli.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 25.07.2017 The petitioner made a request to the competent authority, through jail, for being released on parole for the purposes of re-establishing social ties as also for preferring SLP before the Supreme Court of India. The aforesaid request has not yet been acted upon. From the nominal roll, it appears that the petitioner has been convicted under section 304 Part II of the IPC and was initially sentenced for life imprisonment. However, the aforesaid sentence was modified and now the petitioner has been directed to undergo imprisonment for 8 years. The nominal roll further indicates that the petitioner has remained in jail for about 6 1⁄2 years and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory. The nominal roll does not indicate that the petitioner was ever released on parole and furlough in the past. However, the petitioner was on interim bail on some

occasions.

Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC, with reference to the status report, submits that the address provided by the petitioner has been verified. Taking into account the good conduct of the petitioner, his period of custody as against the quantum of sentence imposed upon him as well as the purpose of the request, this Court feels inclined to release the petitioner 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 Superintendent of the concerned jail.

The petitioner shall 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 officer-in-charge of the concerned police station. d) He shall furnish his and his sureties' 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.

Dasti.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JULY 25, 2017 ab