Mr.Khalil Ansari with Mr.Sunil Sagar and Mohd.Akhtar,Advocates, v. STATE THROUGH GDI

Delhi High Court · 20 Mar 2018 · 2018:DHC:8705
S.P. Garg
W.P.(CRL)822/2018
2018:DHC:8705
criminal petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the competent authority to decide the petitioners' pending parole applications on merits within two weeks and disposed of the writ petitions accordingly.

Full Text
Translation output
/
■ (
$-35 to 39 & 42 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL)822/2018
RAJESH BISHT Petitioner
Through : Mr.Khalil Ansari with Mr.Sunil Sagar and
Mohd.Akhtar,Advocates,
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH GDI Respondent
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Bhadari,SPP with Mr.Prateek Kumar, Advocate.
Ms.Nandita Rao,ASC for NCT ofDelhi.
W.P.(CRL)824/2018
S.K. JAISWAL Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CBI Respondent
Through : , Mr.Sanjeev Bhadari,SPP with Mr.Prateek Kumar, Advocate.
W.P.(CRL)825/2018
G.D.BHATT Petitioner
VERSUS
Advocate.
W.P.(CRL)829/2018
AJEET SINGH Petitioner Mohd.Akhtar, Advocates.
W.P.(Crl.)822/18& connected matters Page I of3
2018:DHC:8705 / -i
■ \
'r
VERSUS
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Bhadari,SPP with Mr.Prateek Kumar, Advocate.
Ms.Nandita Rao,ASC forNCT ofDelhi.
W.P.(CRL)830/2018
NITINCHAUHAN Petitioner Mohd.Akhtar, Advocates,
VERSUS
STATE TITROUGH GBI Respondent Advocate.
Ms.Nandita Rao,ASC for NOT ofDelhi.
W.PTCRL)835/2018
NEERAJ KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.GARG
20.03.2018
ORDER

1. The above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 ofthe Constitution ofIndia read with Section A82 Cr.P.C. seeking parole for a particular duration in case bearing R.C.No.6(s)/2009 registered under Sections 120 B read with Sections W.p.(CrI.)822/18& comected matters P - of[3] 302/364/201 IPC and Sections 364/302/201/218 IPC to engage an advocate to file SLP.

2. Learned SPP appearing for CBI informs that NCT,ofDelhi is a necessary party and be impleaded in the present proceedings.

3. At the oral request oflearned counsel for the petitioner,NCT of Delhi is impleaded as party. Amended memo ofparties shall be filed during the course ofthe day.

4. Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC puts appearance on behalf of NCT of Delhi.

5. During the course of arguments, it was informed that the representations filed by the petitioners seeking parole before the competent authority are pending and no decision so far has been taken.

6. It is agreed during hearing that the competent authority shall dispose of the representations of the petitioners for consideration of parole on merits within two weeks.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the disposal ofthe petitions with the above directions.

8. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the directions that representations of the petitioners seeking parole shall be decided by the competent authority on merits within two weeks. ^.GARG,J. MARCH 20,2018/sa W.P.(Crl.)822/IS & connected matters Page 3of[3]