Petitioner sought parole for three months via writ petition under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. citing pending SLP. Court dismissed the petition, holding that unsatisfactory jail conduct and prior punishments precluded eligibility under Parole Guidelines-2010.
Petition for parole dismissed; no release granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~33
SAURAV @ GOLU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC for the State with Mr.Piyush Singhal, Adv. with SI Manohar Lal PS Rajouri Garden
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R
% 13.01.2016
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
JANUARY 13, 2016/ ‘pg’
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioner is eligible for parole given unsatisfactory jail conduct and punishments awarded in July 2014 and July 2015.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saurav @ Golu
State
Pratibha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
