Full Text
Translation output
lqa-
.r
L/
$-s2
* IN THE HIGI{ COURT
+ w.P.(cRL) 970/20rr
DEVI DAYAL @ RAJU
Through
OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
IW. Anil K. Verma, Ms.Ashu Rani, Advs. oh
.r
L/
$-s2
* IN THE HIGI{ COURT
+ w.P.(cRL) 970/20rr
DEVI DAYAL @ RAJU
Through
OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
IW. Anil K. Verma, Ms.Ashu Rani, Advs. oh
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, A SC for State with Mr. Krishan Kumar, SI, P.S. G.K.-I.
Through
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, A SC for State with Mr. Krishan Kumar, SI, P.S. G.K.-I.
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
15.07.2011
By this petition the Petitioner seeks parole on the ground that the eye surgery of his wife is to be performed. Verification report has been filed by the State which is taken on record and according to which the medical documents of the Petitioner's wife had been found to be original and genuine. The doctors have fixed for operation on 30th July, 2}ll with one month post-operative care. The Petitioner's parole is opposed by the State on the ground that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and now his history sheet is in bundle 'C' i.e. the one meant for convicts. The apprehension expressed regarding law and order problem in case the Petitioner is released page I of 2 w.P.(cRL) 970/2011
2011:DHC:18786
"* .-i t. 3 on parole appears to be unfounded as the Petitioner was granted parole by this Court with effect from 10th March,2}ll for four weeks and there is no allegation that he misused the concession of parole granted to him at that time.
In view of the fact that the surgery of the Petitioner's wife is fixed for
30th July, 20II,I find it to be a fit case for grant of parole to the Petitioner.
It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioner be released on parole for a period of one month with effect from 28th July, 2OII subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court/ CMM. It is clarified that one of the sureties would be a family member of the Petitioner.
Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
JULY 15,2011
'ga' w.P.(cRL) 970/2011
-&n 6rum
/',,. fuc fM//'^r@-
' MUKTA GUPTA,J t P^'
T lr,*"^n "
1a"sof 4 *tT.e>+erctl+Y f'r'- )il.'r4.1 k A i*n-- f*t o
15.07.2011
By this petition the Petitioner seeks parole on the ground that the eye surgery of his wife is to be performed. Verification report has been filed by the State which is taken on record and according to which the medical documents of the Petitioner's wife had been found to be original and genuine. The doctors have fixed for operation on 30th July, 2}ll with one month post-operative care. The Petitioner's parole is opposed by the State on the ground that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and now his history sheet is in bundle 'C' i.e. the one meant for convicts. The apprehension expressed regarding law and order problem in case the Petitioner is released page I of 2 w.P.(cRL) 970/2011
2011:DHC:18786
"* .-i t. 3 on parole appears to be unfounded as the Petitioner was granted parole by this Court with effect from 10th March,2}ll for four weeks and there is no allegation that he misused the concession of parole granted to him at that time.
In view of the fact that the surgery of the Petitioner's wife is fixed for
30th July, 20II,I find it to be a fit case for grant of parole to the Petitioner.
It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioner be released on parole for a period of one month with effect from 28th July, 2OII subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court/ CMM. It is clarified that one of the sureties would be a family member of the Petitioner.
Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
JULY 15,2011
'ga' w.P.(cRL) 970/2011
-&n 6rum
/',,. fuc fM//'^r@-
' MUKTA GUPTA,J t P^'
T lr,*"^n "
1a"sof 4 *tT.e>+erctl+Y f'r'- )il.'r4.1 k A i*n-- f*t o
2011:DHC:18786
JUDGMENT