Sidharth Bansal v. State NCT Of Delhi

$~27 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1442/2015 SIDHARTH BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sunil Upadhyay, Ms.Shikha & Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advs.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State.

SI Vipin Kumar PS Ashok Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 27.08.2015 The petitioner has questioned the order dated 10.06.2015 passed by the competent authority whereby his prayer for being released on the parole has been rejected on the ground of adverse police report and bad impact on law and order under security of area in case of his release on parole. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his conduct in jail has been more than satisfactory and he has already served in the prison for more than 4 years.

With reference to the nominal roll, counsel for the petitioner further submits that on four occasions, he has been released on parole in the years 2013 to 2015.

On all such occasions, the petitioner surrendered on time before the jail authorities.

Status report affirms the residential address of the petitioner. The

illness of the parents of the petitioner is also confirmed. On verification, it has been found that the father of the petitioner is suffering from DMC Obesity and sleep apnea for which he has to be urgently operated upon. The mother of the petitioner is a patient of depression and anxiety syndrome whereas the younger sister is suffering from autism. The petitioner is required to reconnect his social ties. Considering the aforementioned aspects, this Court directs the release of the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days from the date of his release on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the conditions:

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) If the petitioner is required to go out of the territory of Delhi, he would intimate about his visit to the SHO of the concerned police station.

d) He shall furnish his mobile telephone number and the mobile telephone number of both the sureties 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 the coercive steps for securing his attendance.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Dasti.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 27, 2015 ab