Vedprakash @ Lekhu v. State

$~30 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1894/2015 VEDPRAKASH @ LEKHU ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sitab Ali Choudhary, Advocate from DHCLSC.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.

Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with SI Sumer Chand, PS Nabi Karim.

Mr.

Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 19.10.2015 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th August, 2015 passed by the competent authority whereby the prayer of the petitioner for being released on parole for the purpose of filing Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India, arranging funds for the same and for re-connecting social ties with his family, has been rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner has not served the minimum of one year imprisonment for him to avail of the benefit of parole. The competent authority has also relied upon the adverse police report for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner.

The nominal roll of the petitioner reveals that his overall conduct in the jail has been satisfactory.

The petitioner has now remained in jail for one year and nineteen days. The status report, which is on record, affirms the address of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts, specially the fact that the petitioner is required to file Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of 30 days from the date of his release subject to the petitioner furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- e) The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities on or before the expiry of the said period of parole. f) The petitioner shall not engage himself in any unlawful activity. g) 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.

h) 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. A copy of this order be given dasti.

A copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail for information and compliance. ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J OCTOBER 19, 2015 AK