Allowed

Inderjeet @ Inder v. State

Delhi HC12 Jan 2016W.P.(CRL)/85/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the court granted parole to the petitioner, a life convict suffering from chronic kidney disease, for four weeks for medical treatment, accepting the case is based on humanitarian grounds and the petitioner's long incarceration.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner on parole for four weeks on the same terms and conditions as the prior order dated 14.08.2015.

Inderjeet @ Inder Vs State — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

#22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 12.01.2016

¶4

W.P.(CRL) 85/2016

¶5

INDERJEET @ INDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Mirdha, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
(Criminal) with Mr. Amrit Singh, Mr.
Jamal Akhtar and Mr. Sanyog
Bahadur, Advocates and Inspector
Dinesh Kumar, PS- Rohini, Delhi

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

¶7

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

¶8

1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶9

praying for a direction to the official respondent to release the petitioner on parole on the ground of getting treated for chronic kidney disease from which he is suffering.

W.P.(CRL) 85/2016

Page 1 of 3

2. Notice.

3. Mr. Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing on behalf

¶14

of the official respondent accepts notice and fairly does not oppose this petition.

¶15

4. In the present petition, it is observed that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of eleven and half years out of the total sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has been released on parole/furlough from time to time on the ground of his afore-stated medical condition and during his last release on parole, his condition became serious for which he had to be rushed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences. It is further an admitted position that the jail authorities have not requisitioned his services for any labour on account of his being medically unfit. The petitioner has been continuously admitted to the jail hospital for medical treatment.

¶16

5. In view of the foregoing and on humanitarian grounds, it is considered

¶17

just, necessary and expedient to release the petitioner on parole for a further period of four weeks from the date of his release on the same terms and conditions as imposed by this Court by way of order dated 14.08.2015.

¶18

W.P.(CRL) 85/2016

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

6. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶21

7. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar

¶22

for necessary information and compliance.

¶23

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

¶24

JANUARY 12, 2016
dn

¶25

W.P.(CRL) 85/2016

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Inderjeet @ Inder v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderjeet @ Inder v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mankan Deep Singh & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

Gaurav Seth Vs the State & Anr.

Sonia @ Shabnam & Ors. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Mayur Bedi Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Gaurav & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Hem Singh @ Hemu Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mohd. Islam Vs State

Bijender Vs State

Gaurav Seth Vs the State & Anr.

Sonia @ Shabnam & Ors. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Mayur Bedi Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Anuj Tyagi Vs Stae & Ors.

Gorish Maggo & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Usha Siwan Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.