Letminjoy Haokip vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 6851 Del

$~39
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             DECIDED ON : NOVEMBER 08, 2016

+                       CRL.M.B.1656/2016 IN CRL.A.583/2016

        LETMINJOY HAOKIP
                                                                 ..... Petitioner
                                    Through :    Mr.R.A.Worso Zimik, Advocate.

                                    versus

        STATE
                                                                 ..... Respondent
                                    Through :    Mr.Arun K.Sharma, APP.
                                                 W/SI Gurdeep Kaur, PS M.Nagar.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks interim bail to resume BA (Pass), final year during academic year 2016-17. Status report is on record.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioner was convicted under Section 304(1) IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for nine years in case FIR No.172/14 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Maurice Nagar. Nominal roll dated 12.10.2016 reveals that he has undergone two years, one month and thirteen days incarceration besides remission for one month and eleven days as on 12.10.2016. He is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other case. Status report reveals that the petitioner did

not appear for his BA Prog Final Year examination for the academic Session 2014-15. As per record of the college, the petitioner is now an ex-student and he can only appear in the examination in that capacity after filing his examination form. He has not filed examination form till date and can appear only after filing it. Date sheet for B.A.(Programme) Part-I, II and III (I/III/V Semester) for Semester Scheme (Admissions of 2011, 2012 & 2014) has been notified. Exams are scheduled to start from 24th November, 2016. It is further informed that the petitioner has not given residential address at Delhi.

3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the petitioner being in custody could not file examination form.

4. It is agreed that as and when the petitioner is required to take examination, he will be taken in judicial custody at the concerned centre.

5. The application stand disposed of in the above terms.

6. Copy of the order be given dasti to the petitioner's counsel.

7. Copy of the order be also sent to Superintendent Jail for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER 08, 2016 sa