← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/1643/2015

Ashu Sharma @ Himanshu v. State

2015-08-05Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

$~60 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1643/2015 ASHU SHARMA @ HIMANSHU ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms.Naomi Chandra, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms.Kamna Vohra, ASC for the State with SI Alok Kumar Rajan, PS Sarai Rohilla

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 05.08.2015 The petitioner questions the order dated 19.6.2015 whereby his prayer for release on parole on the ground of filing of SLP before the Supreme Court of India was rejected. There was an apprehension of his jumping the parole.

The counsel for the State files status report. Let it be taken on record. With reference to the status report, the counsel for the State submits that the conduct of the petitioner in jail has not been good and otherwise also the petitioner has been made accused in many other cases. Be that at it may, considering the fact that every person has right to avail the remedy available to him under law, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on parole for a specified period. Let the petitioner be released on parole for a period of 15 days from the date of his release on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety

in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following 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 the surety 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. A copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail for information and compliance. Dasti.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 05, 2015 ns