Petitioner sought one month parole to partition family properties and arrange accommodation. Court found petitioner ineligible due to prior parole violation and ordered dismissal of the writ petition.
Parole rejected as not being a fit case due to petitioner's singular conduct and prior violation.
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.
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAUSHAL ALI @ BOMBAIYA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma and Mr. Abhijeet Sharma, Advs. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC for State with Insp. Ajay Kumar, P.S. Jahangir Puri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 07.11.2016
Petitioner seeks parole for one month on the ground that he has to partition family properties after the death of his father and also for arranging funds for the accommodation for his wife and children.
Learned ASC for the State submits that conduct of the petitioner disentitles him the concession of parole. Petitioner is lodged in a high security ward. Petitioner was granted parole by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi with effect from 21st March, 2009 till 4th April, 2009. However, petitioner did not surrender on completion of the parole period. He was re-arrested after more than one year, that is, on 21st April, 2010. It will not be safe to release the petitioner on parole keeping in mind his conduct.
In the above facts, I do not find it to be a fit case to order for release
of petitioner on parole. Writ petition is dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
NOVEMBER 07, 2016
ga
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for release on parole to partition family properties and arrange accommodation.
NAUSHAL ALI @ BOMBAIYA
STATE
A.K. PATHAK
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
