High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/2934/2017

Vicky @ Laddu v. State

2017-12-22Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta2 pages

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2934/2017 VICKY @ LADDU ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Sumer K. Sethi, Adv.

DHCLSC.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Jamal Akhtar, proxy Adv.

for Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with SI Rajeshwar PS Shahdara.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 22.12.2017 By this petition the petitioner seeks parole on the ground that he has to look after the mother who is old and ailing. A status report has been filed verifying the fact that the petitioner's mother is residing at H.No.771/16, Rehman Building, Shahdara, Delhi and is earning her livelihood by working as a maid in other houses. The mother of the petitioner could not produce any documents to show the treatment she is underway.

A perusal of the nominal roll reveals that the petitioner besides the present FIR was convicted in two other cases being FIR Nos. 14/10 and 309/11 wherein he has already undergone the sentence awarded. Even in the present case out of 7 years rigorous imprisonment provided the W.P.(CRL) 2934/2017

remaining sentence of the appellant is nearly 1 year, 7 and a half months. The petitioner was granted parole by the Govt. of NCT with effect from 9th March, 2016 for a period of one month and there is no allegation that at the time of grant of parole the petitioner abused the concession or surrendered late. The only reason for objecting to the grant of parole is the unsatisfactory conduct of the petitioner in jail having been awarded punishments on 1st February, 2017 and 9th February, 2017. By the present petition the petitioner is not seeking furlough which is a reward for good conduct but a parole which is granted to meet the exigencies of life.

Considering the fact that in the year 2017 no parole was granted to the petitioner and it has been verified that the mother of the petitioner is residing at the above-noted address and there is no allegation that when earlier parole was granted to the petitioner he misused the concession, this Court deems it fit to grant parole to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that the petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety bond of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Petition is disposed of.

Copy of this order be communicated to the petitioner though Superintendent Tihar Jail.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

DECEMBER 22, 2017 'ga'

W.P.(CRL) 2934/2017