Ram Dass v. State

$~32 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 2462/2017 RAM DASS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Vikas Padora with Mr. Dipanshu Chugh, Advs.

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

Siddharth Sindhu, Adv.

SI Prem Yadav, P.S. Nangloi

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 16.11.2017 The representation of the petitioner for being released on parole for the purposes of searching suitable match for the second son; for affording medical treatment to his another son and for re-establishing social ties, was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 07.06.2017, perhaps for the reason that on one occasion when the petitioner was granted parole for a period of one month, he had surrendered before the jail authorities about two days later the date of end of such parole.

Nominal roll of the petitioner indicates that the petitioner has remained in jail for about 11 years and has displayed satisfactory conduct. Many a times, the petitioner was released on furlough by the orders of competent authority and except for one occasion in the year 2016, the petitioner had surrendered on time.

On all such occasions, when the petitioner was out from jail, nothing adverse was reported against him. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned ASC, on the strength of the status report, has stated that the address of the petitioner has been verified and has been found

to be true and existing.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this court is inclined to release the petitioner on parole.

The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks, to be counted from the date of his release, subject to his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned jail. The petitioner shall, however, 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 officerin-charge 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.

NOVEMBER 16, 2017/ns ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J