← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/2278/2015

Netrapal v. State

2015-10-12Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

$~41 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 2278/2015 NETRAPAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Mohd. Faraz and Ms.Aniy P.

Agarwala, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.R.S. Kundu, ASC for the State SI Dinesh Kumar, P.S. Sultanpuri

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 12.10.2015 The petitioner questions the order dated 29.7.2015 passed by the competent authority whereby the prayer of the petitioner for being released on parole for getting the family property partitioned in an equitable manner and reconnect social ties has been rejected.

The threat perception to the victim party and to the witnesses was the reason for rejection of such a prayer of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to nominal roll submits that his conduct in jail has been satisfactory throughout and he has already undergone 7 years and 10 months in custody out of the sentence awarded to him.

The status report further reveals the fact that the wife of the petitioner has expired recently. The petitioner has four sons, all of whom are living in the same house at Sultanpuri. The address of the petitioner has also been verified and affirmed.

Considering the aforementioned facts, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of 30 days from the day 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 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 OCTOBER 12, 2015 ns