High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/2351/2017

Vineet @ Pawa v. State

2017-08-21Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

$~48 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 2351/2017 VINEET @ PAWA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ankur Sood with Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC SI Sandeep Raj, P.S. Ranhola

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 21.08.2017 The petitioner has questioned the order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the competent authority whereby the prayer for grant of parole for filing SLP in the Supreme Court of India and for re-establishing social ties has been rejected on the ground of apprehension having been expressed by the police about the adverse impact which would be created because of the release of the petitioner.

From the nominal roll, it appears that the petitioner has remained in jail for about two years by now and his overall conduct in jail has been satisfactory. There is no specific grounds stated in the order warranting such presumption that the release of the petitioner would have adverse effect on the law and order situation in the area and the petitioner might commit another offence.

This presumption is in the realm of conjectures without any basis.

Ms. Richa Kapoor, on instructions, from SI Sandeep Raj, P.S.

Ranhola submits that the address of the petitioner has been verified. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on parole for a specified period.

Let the petitioner be released on parole for 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 be required to follow the conditions listed below:- a) The petitioner shall surrender 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, the National Capital Region, without informing in advance the SHO 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.

AUGUST 21, 2017/ns ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J