Bijender v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought writ for three-month parole to repair house and support family. Court dismissed petition as premature given recent two-week furlough release.
What did the court decide?
Granted release on parole for three months.
What the court decided
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(CRL) 101/2016
| BIJENDER | ..... Petitioner | |
|---|---|---|
| Through | Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate | |
| versus | ||
| STATE | ..... Respondent | |
| Through | Mr. Avi Singh, ASC (Crl.) with Ms. Megha Bahl, Advocate Inspector S.S. Mehta and SI Sandeep |
|
| Kumar, P.S. Karawal Nagar |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
O R D E R % 13.01.2016
The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking release of the petitioner on parole for three months in order to enable him to arrange funds for the repair of his ancestral house; for the education of his children; and to re-establish social ties with family members and society.
In view of the circumstance that the petitioner almost simultaneously applied to the competent authority for grant of parole and furlough and was in fact, released on two weeks’ furlough with effect from 9th November, 2015 to 24th November, 2015, in my view, the present petition is pre-mature at this stage. The same is hereby dismissed.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ for grant of parole to repair house and meet family needs.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Bijender
- respondent
State
Coram
Siddharth Mridul
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court