Gyaneshwar @ Pappu v. State of the NCT of Delhi

8. Nk. Galib STATE OF TIIE NCT OF DELHI..... Respondent Through I4r. Pawan Sharma, S.C. for State with Ms. Laxmi Chauhan & InsP. Ramphool Singh, PS Nangloi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.

JUSTICE MT]KTA GUPTA ORDER oh 14.07.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks parole for three months on the ground that he has to change the school for his two minor children and to reestablish social ties. On a notice being issued, a status report has been filed by the State which shows that the Petitioner's wife is living in a rented house along with their four sons. The two younger sons of the Petitioner Hanny and Deepak are studying in 6ft and 4ft standard respectively. The Petitioner's wife is doing a private job of thread cutting and the two elder sons of the Petitioner are neither studying nor employed. The Petitioner was earlier granted parole two times i.e. from 22"d 2011:DHC:18773 v a November, 2008 to 7h December, 2008 and from 5th April, 2010 tq 6ft Muy,

2006. There is no allegation of misuse of the parole grantgd earlier. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant parole to the Petitioner for a period of four weeks on his fumishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction ofthe learned Trial Court/CMIMlDuty Magistrate. Copy of this order be communicated to the Petitioner through Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi. Petition is disposed of. W'fr"Y'> MUKTA GIIPTA,J JULY l[4],20tl 'dkt hg on*o g trlr' (j.*t rv*rdr.(ic*-*.<l.^p^vc.e r(w>w,l_fi; ( oh 84# $- * IN THE HIGH COI]RT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(cRL) 867/20rr GYANESHWAR @ PAPPU..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Galib Kabir, Advocate.

VETSUS STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI..... Respondent Through: I\4r. Nikhil A. Menon, Advocate for Nk. Dayan Krishnan, Additional Standing Counsel for the State. CORAM: IION'BLE MS.

JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER 17.08.2011 Crl. M.A. No.9615/2011 (modification/waiver of surety amount) By this application the Petitioner seeks reduction of the surety amount. This Court vide its order dated 14th July, 2OII granted parole to the Petitioner for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial CourilCMMlDuty Magistrate. The Petitioner has not been able to furnish the said surety amount. The family status of the Petitioner had been verified by the State. In view of w.P.(cRL) 867/2011 Poge 1 of 2 the fact that the Petitioner has a settled family the order dated 14th July, 20Il is modified to the extent that the Petitioner is granted parole for a period of fgur weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial C ourdCMMlDuty Magistrate. Application stands disposed of.,: Copy of the order be communicated to the Petitioner through Superintendent, Tihar Jail, W@, MUKTA GUPTA, J. AUGUST t[7],20tl tvn'