Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 692/2011
JAIKISHAN @JACKY Petitioner
Through Ms.AnitaAbraham, Advocate
W.P.(CRL) 692/2011
JAIKISHAN @JACKY Petitioner
Through Ms.AnitaAbraham, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for State.
Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER o/o 24.08.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks parole on the groimd that he has to search a suitable match for his own marriage and for treatment of his mother who has heart problem.
On a notice being issued to the State, a status report has been filed which reveals that the family of the Petitioner consists of his mother, his deceased brother's family, his younger brother and his family. The only ground on which the parole is opposed by the State is that two ofthe co- convicts of the Petitioner i.e. Sunil Kumar and Raj Kumar have jumped the parole and did not surrender when they were last granted parole and hence there is apprehension that the Petitioner may misuse the concession ofparole
2011:DHC:16885 granted to.him.
Merely because the co-convicts have jumped the parole, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is also likely to jump the parole. The nominal roll of the Petitioner shows that the Petitioner was granted parole in the year 2009 and 2010 and he surrendered in time. There is no allegation that he misused the concession of bail granted to him.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is granted parole for aperiod offour weeks on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount out of which one would be his family members subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court/CMM.
Petition is disposed of. Order Dasti.
Copy of this order be communicated to the Petitioner through
Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 24, 2011
^ I t ^. A hi -^-1 III—
I K \ 4 , » y- I 56# $-- HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 692/2011
JAI KISHAN @ JACKY Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate for Ms. Anita Abraham, Advocate.
ORDER o/o 24.08.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks parole on the groimd that he has to search a suitable match for his own marriage and for treatment of his mother who has heart problem.
On a notice being issued to the State, a status report has been filed which reveals that the family of the Petitioner consists of his mother, his deceased brother's family, his younger brother and his family. The only ground on which the parole is opposed by the State is that two ofthe co- convicts of the Petitioner i.e. Sunil Kumar and Raj Kumar have jumped the parole and did not surrender when they were last granted parole and hence there is apprehension that the Petitioner may misuse the concession ofparole
2011:DHC:16885 granted to.him.
Merely because the co-convicts have jumped the parole, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is also likely to jump the parole. The nominal roll of the Petitioner shows that the Petitioner was granted parole in the year 2009 and 2010 and he surrendered in time. There is no allegation that he misused the concession of bail granted to him.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is granted parole for aperiod offour weeks on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount out of which one would be his family members subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court/CMM.
Petition is disposed of. Order Dasti.
Copy of this order be communicated to the Petitioner through
Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 24, 2011
^ I t ^. A hi -^-1 III—
I K \ 4 , » y- I 56# $-- HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 692/2011
JAI KISHAN @ JACKY Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate for Ms. Anita Abraham, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel.
Through: Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
20.09.2011 CrL M.A. 11137/2011 (modification of order dated 24^** August 2011)
By this application the Petitioner seeks reduction in the surety amount and the number of surety as ordered vide order dated 24^^ August, 2011 passed by this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's brother who used to stand surety of the Petitioner has expired and the Petitioner was earlier granted parole when he surrendered in time, the order dated 24^^ August, 2011 is modified. It is 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 who would be his family member, subject to the satisfaction of he learned Trial
Court/CMM.
Application stands disposed of Copy of the order be communicated to the Petitioner through
Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
'j'y^ MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2011/'vn' HovV ^ -1(Co C Kfhcfi
20.09.2011 CrL M.A. 11137/2011 (modification of order dated 24^** August 2011)
By this application the Petitioner seeks reduction in the surety amount and the number of surety as ordered vide order dated 24^^ August, 2011 passed by this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's brother who used to stand surety of the Petitioner has expired and the Petitioner was earlier granted parole when he surrendered in time, the order dated 24^^ August, 2011 is modified. It is 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 who would be his family member, subject to the satisfaction of he learned Trial
Court/CMM.
Application stands disposed of Copy of the order be communicated to the Petitioner through
Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
'j'y^ MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2011/'vn' HovV ^ -1(Co C Kfhcfi
JUDGMENT