Full Text
Translation output
$-4 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.(CRL.).51 1/20 13
HARI SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Advocate with Mr.Gautam Talukdar, Mr.Raghu
Tandon & Mr.Rohit Singh, Advocates.
HARI SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Advocate with Mr.Gautam Talukdar, Mr.Raghu
Tandon & Mr.Rohit Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through:: Mr.Rjesh Mahajan, ASC.
SI Harkesh.
Through:: Mr.Rjesh Mahajan, ASC.
SI Harkesh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
05.04.2013 The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for extension of parole granted to him by Govt. of
NCT of Delhi for a period of three months from 08.04.2013.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. The petitioner was convicted under Section 3 of Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 read with Sections 186, 353 and 365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide order dated 30.07.2001. In Crl.A.No.59812001, the conviction was upheld and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide order dated 29.03.2011. On 10. 10.2011 and 29.05.2012, the petitioner was granted parole. Again, vide order dated 29.10.2012, he was granted one month
2013:DHC:7541 parole on 13.02.2013. It is stated that the parole period will expire on
08.04.2013. The petitioner prays for extension of parole period for three months to enable him to admit his younger daughter and to pursue his petition moved under Section 72 of the Constitution of India.
Admittedly, parole was granted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi which expires on 08.04.2013. Admitted position is that the petitioner did not move any application before the concerned authorities for extension of parole on any valid ground. When the parole period is going on to expire on
08.04.2013, today on 05.04.2013 at the eleventh hour, the petitioner has
Iwo moved this Court for extension of parole period from 08.04.20 13 for three months more. Apparently, the petitioner has not challenged any order of any competent authority which is to be perused by this Court on merits. The petition is premature and is not maintainable in view of the parole period granted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
The petition is dismissed. i.P.GAR(G, J APRIL 05, 20131tr
2013:DHC:7541
05.04.2013 The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for extension of parole granted to him by Govt. of
NCT of Delhi for a period of three months from 08.04.2013.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. The petitioner was convicted under Section 3 of Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 read with Sections 186, 353 and 365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide order dated 30.07.2001. In Crl.A.No.59812001, the conviction was upheld and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide order dated 29.03.2011. On 10. 10.2011 and 29.05.2012, the petitioner was granted parole. Again, vide order dated 29.10.2012, he was granted one month
2013:DHC:7541 parole on 13.02.2013. It is stated that the parole period will expire on
08.04.2013. The petitioner prays for extension of parole period for three months to enable him to admit his younger daughter and to pursue his petition moved under Section 72 of the Constitution of India.
Admittedly, parole was granted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi which expires on 08.04.2013. Admitted position is that the petitioner did not move any application before the concerned authorities for extension of parole on any valid ground. When the parole period is going on to expire on
08.04.2013, today on 05.04.2013 at the eleventh hour, the petitioner has
Iwo moved this Court for extension of parole period from 08.04.20 13 for three months more. Apparently, the petitioner has not challenged any order of any competent authority which is to be perused by this Court on merits. The petition is premature and is not maintainable in view of the parole period granted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
The petition is dismissed. i.P.GAR(G, J APRIL 05, 20131tr
2013:DHC:7541
JUDGMENT