Full Text
Translation output
50#$~ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 768/2011
BACHI SINGH .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate.
W.P.(CRL) 768/2011
BACHI SINGH .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel for the State with SI Sunil Kumar, PS Lodhi Colony.
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel for the State with SI Sunil Kumar, PS Lodhi Colony.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
23.08.2011 By this petition the Petitioner seeks parole on the ground that he has to file the SLP.
Learned proxy counsel for the learned Standing Counsel for the State states that on verification it has been found that the Petitioner has two sons and two daughters. Since the sons of the Petitioner are working, they are competent to file the SLP on behalfofthe Petitioner.
The Petitioner has undergone the sentence of imprisonment for more than 12 years including the remissions. The Petitioner has been in confinuous custody for the last more than one year. As per the status report the Petitioner has roots in the society and no other involvement of the
Petitioner is pointed out.
23.08.2011 By this petition the Petitioner seeks parole on the ground that he has to file the SLP.
Learned proxy counsel for the learned Standing Counsel for the State states that on verification it has been found that the Petitioner has two sons and two daughters. Since the sons of the Petitioner are working, they are competent to file the SLP on behalfofthe Petitioner.
The Petitioner has undergone the sentence of imprisonment for more than 12 years including the remissions. The Petitioner has been in confinuous custody for the last more than one year. As per the status report the Petitioner has roots in the society and no other involvement of the
Petitioner is pointed out.
W.P.(CRL) 768/2011 Page 1 of2
2011:DHC:16874 In the mterest of justice, it is therefore, directed that tiie Petitioner released on parole for a period of four v^^eeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Petition is disposed of Copy of the order be communicated to the petitioner through the
Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
AUGUST 23, 2011 'vn'
2011:DHC:16874 In the mterest of justice, it is therefore, directed that tiie Petitioner released on parole for a period of four v^^eeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Petition is disposed of Copy of the order be communicated to the petitioner through the
Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
AUGUST 23, 2011 'vn'
W.R(CRL) 768/2011
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
_ ^ f 0cK\ '-'U _\w -5-<^oWcrVinA j'k suiu-lied 4 'Vw-o"j-o
Page 2 of2 $-44 HIGH COURT OF DELHI BACHI SINGH Petitioner
Through Ms. Raldii Dubey, Adv.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
_ ^ f 0cK\ '-'U _\w -5-<^oWcrVinA j'k suiu-lied 4 'Vw-o"j-o
Page 2 of2 $-44 HIGH COURT OF DELHI BACHI SINGH Petitioner
Through Ms. Raldii Dubey, Adv.
VERSUS
Through Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, proxy counsel for
ASC for the State.
ASC for the State.
CORAM:
08.1L2011 Crl.M.A. No. 17457/2011 (for modification)
By this application, the applicant seeks reduction of number of sureties and the surety amount since he cannot arrange the same in view of financial position of the family.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner is languishing in jail for more than 11 years, I deem it fit to modify the order dated 23'^^ August, 2011. It is now directed that the Petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks on his fiimishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Application is disposed of.
Order be communicated to the Petitioner through Superintendent, Tihar
Jail.
MUKTA GUPTA,J NOVEMBER 08, 2011 ^)j9^!my Ytkuetcti-\ .
M&k -oifiC-l'j oc-tAcC . ' .A 1"' 56# $~ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
By this application, the applicant seeks reduction of number of sureties and the surety amount since he cannot arrange the same in view of financial position of the family.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner is languishing in jail for more than 11 years, I deem it fit to modify the order dated 23'^^ August, 2011. It is now directed that the Petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks on his fiimishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Application is disposed of.
Order be communicated to the Petitioner through Superintendent, Tihar
Jail.
MUKTA GUPTA,J NOVEMBER 08, 2011 ^)j9^!my Ytkuetcti-\ .
M&k -oifiC-l'j oc-tAcC . ' .A 1"' 56# $~ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Dayan ICrishnan, Additional Standing Counsel with Mr. Nilchil A.
Menon, Advocate.
Menon, Advocate.
CORAM:
30.01.2012 Crl. M.A. 1177/2012 (modification of order dated 8^*" November, 2011)
By this application the Petitioner seeks modification ofthe order dated
8''^ November, 2011 passed by this Court. Vide order dated 23'"'' August, 2011 the Petitioner was granted parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Vide
Crl.
M.A. No. 17457/2011 the Petitioner sought modification and this Court vide order dated 8"^ November, 2011 directed thePetitioner to be released on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the
W.P.(CRL) 768/2011 satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
This is the second application for modification. The prayer of the
Petitioner of being released on personal bond or on deposit of cash surety cannotbe accepted in view of the offence the Petitioner has been convicted of and a likelihood of his absconding. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Petitioner has not been able to furnish the surety bond since August, 2011, I deem it fit to further modify the order dated 8^'^ November, 2011. It is therefore, directed that the Petitioner be now released on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM.
Application is disposed of Copy of the order be communicated to the Petitioner through
Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 30, 2012 'vn' CJ rtCr4A.|i'^ fV.P. (CRL) 768/2011 Page 2 of2
$-23
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Adv.
By this application the Petitioner seeks modification ofthe order dated
8''^ November, 2011 passed by this Court. Vide order dated 23'"'' August, 2011 the Petitioner was granted parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Vide
Crl.
M.A. No. 17457/2011 the Petitioner sought modification and this Court vide order dated 8"^ November, 2011 directed thePetitioner to be released on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the
W.P.(CRL) 768/2011 satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
This is the second application for modification. The prayer of the
Petitioner of being released on personal bond or on deposit of cash surety cannotbe accepted in view of the offence the Petitioner has been convicted of and a likelihood of his absconding. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Petitioner has not been able to furnish the surety bond since August, 2011, I deem it fit to further modify the order dated 8^'^ November, 2011. It is therefore, directed that the Petitioner be now released on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM.
Application is disposed of Copy of the order be communicated to the Petitioner through
Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 30, 2012 'vn' CJ rtCr4A.|i'^ fV.P. (CRL) 768/2011 Page 2 of2
$-23
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Adv.
VERSUS
Through: Ms. Fizani Hussain, AFP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
19.12.2012 Crl. M.A. 20188/2012 (for modification)
Surety amount is reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
Application is disposed of in the above terms. criC. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2012 ga r>
Corjc 0? • , )'^o3v)j3 -
$-20
19.12.2012 Crl. M.A. 20188/2012 (for modification)
Surety amount is reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
Application is disposed of in the above terms. criC. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2012 ga r>
Corjc 0? • , )'^o3v)j3 -
$-20
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Sahil Mongia, Advocate for Ms.Fizani Husain, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
12.08.2013 t Crl. M.A. 12030/2013 (for modification)
L This is an application for modification of order dated 19^*^
December, 2012 for releasing the petitioner on furnishing personal bond along with deposit of cash surety in lieu of surety bond on the ground that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish the surety and he has been still languishing in jail despite granting parole.
12.08.2013 t Crl. M.A. 12030/2013 (for modification)
L This is an application for modification of order dated 19^*^
December, 2012 for releasing the petitioner on furnishing personal bond along with deposit of cash surety in lieu of surety bond on the ground that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish the surety and he has been still languishing in jail despite granting parole.
ORDER
2. The application is opposed by learned additional standing counsel on the ground that the petitioner is convicted for offence under Sections 302/394/34 IPC and in case he is released on personal bond without surety there is every likelihood of his non availability afterhe is released on parole. Moreover, the petitioner is stated to be.A \'S resident of Uttranchal, that being so, the local police will have no control over him, therefore, the prayer is opposed.
3. Record reveals that the petitioner was ordered to be released on parole, on furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/with two sureties in the like amount. On his request, the surety was reduced to one. On his further request, the order was modified to the If. extent that he be released on furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and thereafter to Rs.5,000/- but he did not furnish the same. However, keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted, it will not be desirable to release him on personal bond with cash surety as prayed for.
4. As such, the application is dismissed.
JITA GUP SUNITA GUPTA, J