Delhi High Court
Rajender @ Kallu vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 28 May, 2025
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.05.2025
+ W.P.(CRL) 1813/2025
RAJENDER @ KALLU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chetan Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyal
Bhardwaj, Mr. Pulkit Tripathi and
Mr. Dhanush Kumar, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for State
with Inspector Ravi Kumar, PS
Maurya Enclave.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks emergency parole for four weeks.
2. At the outset, learned ASC appearing on advance intimation submits
that the petitioner has concealed one of the earlier similar petitions. It is
submitted by the ASC that this is the third petition on the same cause of
action. It is disclosed by learned ASC that initially, for the same relief the
petitioner filed W.P.(CRL) 1554/2025 and during pendency of the same, he
filed another writ petition, numbered W.P.(CRL) 1555/2025 after concealing
the earlier writ petition. The W.P.(CRL) 1555/2025 was disposed of vide
order dated 08.05.2025 directing the competent authority to decide parole
application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but positively
within time prescribed by law and the petitioner would file appropriate
petition depending upon decision or even indecision of the competent
W.P.(CRL) 1813/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.05.28 14:22:55 +05'30'
authority. Copy of that order dated 08.05.2025 is Annexure P-3.
3. But W.P.(CRL) 1554/2025 was concealed in W.P.(CRL) 1555/2025
and this petition as well. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner
stated that he did not disclose about W.P.(CRL) 1554/2025 because that
petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Although, even a withdrawn petition ought to have been disclosed,
but it appears that this statement of counsel for petitioner made at bar during
submissions is false.
5. From the website of the Delhi High Court, a copy of Oral Judgment
dated 09.05.2025 has been downloaded and the same reflects that
W.P.(CRL) 1554/2025 was dismissed after discussion and not dismissed as
withdrawn. As reflected from the Oral Judgment dated 09.05.2025, stand of
the respondent State has been that antecedents of the petitioner do not
support his case and that is the reason, he approached this court without
waiting for the decision of the competent authority.
6. Even the counsel appearing in W.P.(CRL) 1554/2025 was same, Mr.
Chetan Bhardwaj, Advocate, who has appeared today and the disposal of
that writ petition was by way of an Oral Judgment, dictated in open court in
his presence. That being so, it is not just a case of concealment but also
making false submissions during arguments.
7. Rather, Oral Judgment dated 09.05.2025 also reflects that the two
W.P.(CRL) 1813/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.05.28 14:22:36 +05'30'
parole applications were filed by the sister of the petitioner. Even the present
petition has been filed by the same lady, through the same counsel.
8. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to
invoke writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed with a warning to the
counsel not to repeat such conduct.
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.28
14:22:21 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MAY 28, 2025/DR
W.P.(CRL) 1813/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
