Raju vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 2926 Del

#46
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Date of decision: 22.04.2016

W.P.(CRL) 1200/2016
RAJU                                           ..... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr. Biswajit Patra and Mr. Puneet
                                        Singhal, Advocates

                           versus
STATE                                        ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Criminal)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)

praying for a direction to the official respondent to release the petitioner on

parole in order to enable him to search a suitable life partner for himself; to

provide medical treatment to his aged ailing mother and to maintain family

and social ties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2016 whereby his

representation for parole on the above grounds was rejected by the

competent authority for the following reasons:-

".... Rejected in the absence of requisite police verification report regarding verification of address and grounds taken by convict from concerned police authorities i.e. from DCP, North East, Delhi and SHO/Khajuri Khas, Delhi, which could not be obtained despite several requests. Further, the convict has last availed one month parole upto 18.05.2015 by the order of DHC and 03 weeks furlough upto 23.12.2015 by the order of DG (P)."

3. A perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner reveals that he is a

habitual offender as he had jumped parole on one occasion and was re-

arrested after being released on furlough on another occasion in December,

2015.

4. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is devoid of merit and is

accordingly dismissed.

5. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar

for communication of the same to the petitioner.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J APRIL 22, 2016 dn