Full Text
Translation output
$-21.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL)2409/2016
SHASHl SHEKHAR@NEERAJ Petitioner
Through: Ms.Neha,Advoeate.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL)2409/2016
SHASHl SHEKHAR@NEERAJ Petitioner
Through: Ms.Neha,Advoeate.
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent
Through; Ms.Kamna Vohra,ASC for the State.
Through; Ms.Kamna Vohra,ASC for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
14.09.2016 This matter has been taken up today since 13.09.2016 was declared as holiday on account ofId-ul-Zuha(Baqried).
The status report has been received. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since interim order was not passed by this Court,the petitioner has already surrendered.
The petitioner had preferred the present writ petition to seek extension ofhis parole granted vide order dated 19.07.2016 in writ petition being W.P.
(Crl.)No.1587/2016. The petitioner has applied for extension on the ground that the marriage ofhis daughter had been fixed. The status report confirms this position. Since the petitioner was found entitled to grant ofparole vide order dated 19.07.2016, there is no reason to deny him parole keeping in
2016:DHC:9133 view the aforesaid development.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks on the same terms and conditions on which he was granted parole vide order dated 19.07.2016.
The petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI,J SEPTEMBER 14,2016 B.S. Rohella
2016:DHC:9133
14.09.2016 This matter has been taken up today since 13.09.2016 was declared as holiday on account ofId-ul-Zuha(Baqried).
The status report has been received. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since interim order was not passed by this Court,the petitioner has already surrendered.
The petitioner had preferred the present writ petition to seek extension ofhis parole granted vide order dated 19.07.2016 in writ petition being W.P.
(Crl.)No.1587/2016. The petitioner has applied for extension on the ground that the marriage ofhis daughter had been fixed. The status report confirms this position. Since the petitioner was found entitled to grant ofparole vide order dated 19.07.2016, there is no reason to deny him parole keeping in
2016:DHC:9133 view the aforesaid development.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks on the same terms and conditions on which he was granted parole vide order dated 19.07.2016.
The petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI,J SEPTEMBER 14,2016 B.S. Rohella
2016:DHC:9133
JUDGMENT