Full Text
Translation output
t $-34 HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P.(cRL) 336t2orr
PRAMOD KUMAR
Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Gautam Kmazanchi, Adv.
PRAMOD KUMAR
Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Gautam Kmazanchi, Adv.
CORAM: ..... Respondent Mr. Kumar Vijayandra for Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for State with
Mr. O.P. Thakur, IO, P.S. Vasant Kunj.
IION'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
08.08.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks parole on the ground that he has to be present at the time of partition of the property, to repair the dwelling house in village and to re-establish ties. On a notice being issued a status report has been filed by the State which states that there is no ancestral property of the Petitioner arld his family is in Delhi. As regards the ancestral property which the Petitioner claims has to be distributed, belongs to the grand-father of the Petitioner Shri Gabbar Sittgh, and since he is still alive, there is no provision as.per the rules applicable in the district of transferring the property in the name of Pramod Kumar during the life time of his grand-
IION'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
08.08.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks parole on the ground that he has to be present at the time of partition of the property, to repair the dwelling house in village and to re-establish ties. On a notice being issued a status report has been filed by the State which states that there is no ancestral property of the Petitioner arld his family is in Delhi. As regards the ancestral property which the Petitioner claims has to be distributed, belongs to the grand-father of the Petitioner Shri Gabbar Sittgh, and since he is still alive, there is no provision as.per the rules applicable in the district of transferring the property in the name of Pramod Kumar during the life time of his grand-
VERSUS
STATE OF OTCT) DELHI
Through o/o w.P.(cRL) s36/2011 page I of 2 2011:DHC:18832
{ father. The parole is further opposed on the ground that the Petitioner is involved in other criminal cases. A perusal shows that besides the present case the petitioner was convicted in three other cases where he was directed to pay fine and he has since undergone those sentence/fine, and thus the same are not reflected in the nominal roll.
Be that as it may, despite the three other convictions as mentioned above, the Petitioner was granted parole in the yeat 2008 and 2009. He surrendered in time and did not misuse the concession of parole granted to him.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem 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 Rs. 50,0004 with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial CourV CMM. One of the sureties would be a family member of the Petitioner. petition is disposed of. Order be communicated to the Petitioner through Superintendent Tihar jait.
W'@ -MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 08, 2011 'gu' w'p'Gru) 3 o/2011
4p{a 0d .
\t Arr l, -Hr,#.ffi#ffi# a*{elloft e{,q ., I $-
IN THE HIGH COT]RT w.P.(cRL) 336120rr PRAMOD KUMAR
Through
Through o/o w.P.(cRL) s36/2011 page I of 2 2011:DHC:18832
{ father. The parole is further opposed on the ground that the Petitioner is involved in other criminal cases. A perusal shows that besides the present case the petitioner was convicted in three other cases where he was directed to pay fine and he has since undergone those sentence/fine, and thus the same are not reflected in the nominal roll.
Be that as it may, despite the three other convictions as mentioned above, the Petitioner was granted parole in the yeat 2008 and 2009. He surrendered in time and did not misuse the concession of parole granted to him.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem 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 Rs. 50,0004 with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial CourV CMM. One of the sureties would be a family member of the Petitioner. petition is disposed of. Order be communicated to the Petitioner through Superintendent Tihar jait.
W'@ -MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 08, 2011 'gu' w'p'Gru) 3 o/2011
4p{a 0d .
\t Arr l, -Hr,#.ffi#ffi# a*{elloft e{,q ., I $-
IN THE HIGH COT]RT w.P.(cRL) 336120rr PRAMOD KUMAR
Through
VERSUS
, STATE OF CNCT) DELHI
Through OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Advocate o/o ......Respondent
Mr. Saleem Ahmed, A.S.C. for State with SI Surjit Singh.
Through OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Advocate o/o ......Respondent
Mr. Saleem Ahmed, A.S.C. for State with SI Surjit Singh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MITKTA GUPTA
14.tt.20lL Crl.
M.A. No. I.0542/20LL(modification)
By this application, the applicant seeks reduction in the number of sureties and the surety amount as directed vide order dated 8th August,2OII by this Court while granting parole to the Petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in view of the financial status of the Petitioner, he is not in a position to furnish a surety amount of Rs.50000/- with two sureties and hence the same be reduced. The
Petitioner was granted parole earlier also wherein he did not misuse the concession of bail and surrendered in time.
'The parole of the Petitioner was rejected by the Government on the ground that the parents of the Petitioner have no control over him. A status ri:
'b, report has been filed by the State. As per the status report, on earlier occasion when the Petitioner was granted parole though he was initially directbd to furnish a bond of Rs.50000/- with one surety of the like amount, however the surety amount was subsequently reduced.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case that the
Petitioner had earlier surrendered in time and did not misuse the concession of bail granted to him, I deem it fit to modiff the order dated 8th August,
14.tt.20lL Crl.
M.A. No. I.0542/20LL(modification)
By this application, the applicant seeks reduction in the number of sureties and the surety amount as directed vide order dated 8th August,2OII by this Court while granting parole to the Petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in view of the financial status of the Petitioner, he is not in a position to furnish a surety amount of Rs.50000/- with two sureties and hence the same be reduced. The
Petitioner was granted parole earlier also wherein he did not misuse the concession of bail and surrendered in time.
'The parole of the Petitioner was rejected by the Government on the ground that the parents of the Petitioner have no control over him. A status ri:
'b, report has been filed by the State. As per the status report, on earlier occasion when the Petitioner was granted parole though he was initially directbd to furnish a bond of Rs.50000/- with one surety of the like amount, however the surety amount was subsequently reduced.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case that the
Petitioner had earlier surrendered in time and did not misuse the concession of bail granted to him, I deem it fit to modiff the order dated 8th August,
ORDER
2011. It is now directed that the Petitioner 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 subjectto the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM. Application is disposed of. Copy of this order be communicated to the Petitioner through Superintendent, Tihar Jail. X*fr*-- I'MUKTA GUPTA,J NOVEMBER I[4].2OII 'dkt